Angela Cummine’s analysis of the possible outcome of using the Alternative Voting system (Oxford Mail), April 4) is flawed, because it has assumed that the electorate’s first choice of candidate will remain unchanged under the new, improved system, but it will not.

There are unknown numbers of voters who would have preferred to vote UKIP or Green, say, but they dare not because they believe such votes would be wasted.

And in a first-past-the-post system, their votes are, indeed, wasted.

So, instead of expressing their real desires, they reluctantly vote for one of The Big Two.

First-past-the-post suits a two-party state very well.

By using the Alternative Voting system, these people can safely vote for their real first choice, whoever it may be, knowing that if their preferred choice is knocked out, they can still have a vote cast “to keep the other lot out” if necessary.

It will ensure that the candidate who eventually wins has more votes cast in their favour than cast against them.

That has to be a good thing. It will also ensure that smaller parties will actually get the votes they deserve, and, who knows, may radically change the political landscape of this country by better representing our political beliefs.

And that would be another good thing.

Keith Dancey, St Peter’s Road, Upper Wolvercote, Oxford