Rank a party’s candidates!

• IN his letter asking what the STV, single transferable vote, would do to our democracy Martin Plaut questions the need for multi-member constituencies, (What would STV do to our democracy? Letters, July 7). But without them the STV system would not achieve proportional representation.

He feels that having one MP per constituency is the great strength of our current system, the member being clearly accountable to voters for solving issues they raise with them. I disagree.

The primary role of the MP is to be a lawmaker, part of the legislature. It is vital these lawmakers be elected in proportion to the votes cast.

Dealing with constituents’ problems is a secondary matter, but surely having four members to approach (if Camden & Islington was one of the multi-member divisions under STV) instead of just one, would be a good thing.

It is highly unlikely that four Labour MPs would be returned as now, but probably two Labour, one Tory and one Liberal Democrat.

Good! The voter could choose whom to go to, by party, gender maybe, reputation, or whatever.

The other great strength of the multi-member system is that party members would have to compete with each other. The voter only has one first preference.

So dyed-in-the-wool Labour supporters would have to choose which of the four gets it. The controversies of Zionism and anti-Semitism would play out not just in meetings, or letters to the CNJ, but in the ballot box. That would enhance our democracy.

Mr Plaut also asked what the composition of parliament would look like if the 2019 election had been held under an STV system but in single member constituencies.

No one can say for sure as voters’ behaviour would have changed. Turnout would probably have increased, but the result in seats would only have been slightly more proportional. The Electoral Reform Society would be able to help him on this.

ROBERT PELLEGRINETTI, NW5