Since the general election a number of comments have been published on these pages regarding electoral reform.

Reform is certainly needed since the very idea of tactical voting is fundamentally undemocratic. A tactical vote is an untruth and makes a mockery of democracy.

We need a system of voting that allows each vote to count and yet retains local constituency identity.

This is most easily done using the system known as the alternative vote.

It does away with any need for tactical voting and yet remains constituency focussed. In practical terms voters number the candidates in order of preference.

If no candidate receives more than 50 per cent of the first preference votes, second preferences are taken into account.

The result is then like having a second run-off election between the two leading parties.

In Stroud this may or may not have changed the result – that would depend on which way the second or third preference votes were cast by those who did not vote Tory or Labour – but it would have resulted in an MP being elected by more than 50 per cent of the electorate.

Unfortunately the alternative vote was rejected in the referendum but it needs to be considered again.

A system of proportional representation is not the solution. If we want a true localised democracy it is no good introducing a system that allocates seats to parties separate from a constituency or else lumps several constituencies together.

An MP chosen by the Stroud constituency should only be elected by the voters of Stroud.

What happens in Cheltenham for instance is for Cheltenham to decide and should not affect the outcome in Stroud.

If every MP is elected by more than 50 per cent of the vote – which the alternative vote would ensure – there is no need for so-called proportional representation.

PR only muddies the waters by increasing the influence of political parties over individual representatives.

Bernard Jarman

Stroud