Letter: We should be cautious about changing our tried and tested electoral system

This has led to many demanding a more proportional system. I think we should be cautious about changing our tried and tested system. First past the post has its disparities but it was ratified in the 2011 referendum, has delivered strong, stable government more often than not, has avoided the gridlock and instability of many proportional systems and facilitates proper by-elections when MPs need replaced.

Proportionality removes any real choice from electors as there is always the need for a coalition deal at the end which allows any party to ditch anything because its part of a coalition deal.

I think one potential solution is to retain first past the post for our executive chamber but introduce some form of proportionality for a second chamber to replace the House of Lords.

To be fair to the Lords, you can often see some very thoughtful contributions from politicians freed from the burden of having to appease public opinion ahead of re-election.

If, however, Labour are minded to replace the House of Lords anyway, I think a senate which is intended purely to revise and review legislation and not to be coequal with the executive Chamber of the Commons in the way other systems like America are then proportionality in the weaker chamber could give a broader range of people a voice but without creating the executive instability that PR in the House of Commons would create.

This would allow voters to vote tactically for their party of government in a House of Commons election but have a second PR vote for the party of their choice where they could register a protest vote or support for a smaller party or issue unlikely to win a Westminster seat but with some degree of support across the country which could have a voice in the scrutinisation stage of legislation in a second chamber.

R G McDowell, Belfast BT5