IN RESPONSE to the letter by Malcolm Morrison in the Swindon Advertiser on August 4, I am in agreement for the need for electoral reform.

If we’d had PR in the last election, the votes cast for UKIP (which where four million) they would have had 80 MPs instead of just one.

The SNP polled only1.3 million and got 56 MPs but under PR they would have got 26 MPs. The Lib-Dems would have 26 MPs and not eight.

However, where I disagree with Mr Morrison is on the Single Transferable Vote.

Under the STV system, we would be asked to select in order of preferences but apart from the floating voter, the vast majority of us are loyal to just one party.

Why should we be asked to vote for another party who we dislike?

The STV, if adopted, goes like this. You vote for the party of your choice then you place your next preference then you third and so on.

So the scenario would be this – the Tory supporters would put the Conservatives first, then most likely the Lib Dems second and Labour third.

Labour backers would vote Labour first, most likely Lib Dems second and the Conservatives third.

The Lib Dems voters would put the Lib Dems first with the Conservatives or Labour second or third.

When you total them up you get this: Cons – one first place, one second and one third; Libs Dems – one first and two seconds; Labour – one first, one second and one third.

Therefore, the party with the most first and seconds would be the Lib Dems. No wonder they want that system.

We already have a good system in place and we use it for the European elections.

It’s simple, the more votes you receive the more MEPs you get elected.

And have you noticed that nobody ever complains about it being undemocratic?

ALLAN WOODHAM Nythe Swindon