WE ARE told the First Past The Post (FPTP) voting system no longer meets our political requirements.

But the Alternative Vote (AV) system could well confuse electors rather than automatically increase democracy. It might improve a philosophically assured, morally sound, homogeneous society, which ours decidedly is not.

If AV is introduced, what would come next? A toothless elected second chamber and a redundant monarchy?

The Left constantly bay for an EU Soviet-style republic. Edward L Bernays (look him up, at least he was honest) got nearest to it: “Control the masses without their knowing it.”

As politicians think short term, they pander to the immigrant vote and fear critics who suggest democracy is in terminal decline.

The Electoral Reform Society says AV “penalises extremist parties (and) rewards broad church policies”. So the fuss about the BNP or Respect gaining advantage looks a little dubious.

In light of major political scandals, electors could do worse than see what the ‘extremists’ offer and discover for themselves whether they are more sinned against than sinners.

With or without AV, we can rest assured there will be continued EU control and corruption via Westminster proxies.

Hoping to ensure the party game, politicians will import ever more immigrants, till one group feels strong enough to fight under its own banner. Then it’s goodbye Lib-Lab-Con.

STEPHEN WARD, Tudor Close, Oxford

I have to ask you and your readers’ indulgence for some slight skill at sums, but the result is interesting.

I think I have found a snag with the idea that the AV system would be fairer than FPTP because it insists on awarding a win only to the candidate who gets 50 per cent of the vote.

Take, for example a constituency with 10,000 votes cast for three candidates: With FPTP, the candidates might get the following votes: Candidate A – 4,500 votes; Candidate B – 4,000 votes; Candidate C – 1,500 votes; So A wins with 45 per cent of the votes.

With AV, Candidate C is eliminated but his/her second preferences are counted. Let’s say that some voters for C are staunch supporters and cannot bring themselves to vote for anyone else as a second preference. Valid second preferences might be: Candidate A – 900 votes; Candidate B – 300 votes; with 300 votes not used.

But now A has 4,800 votes and B has 4,900 votes. Still nobody has the magic 50 per cent.

So what happens here, do we call for a re-election or do we award B with a win anyway?

John Sanders, Oxfordshire county councillor Headington Road, Oxford

MR Oates’S letter (Oxford Mail, April 26) concerning the AV referendum is somewhat short of facts.

Yes, Australia has AV, but a recent poll showed that six out of 10 voters would like to change the voting system. And where else in the world do we have AV?

Well there’s Fiji – which would also like to ditch AV in favour of a First Past the Post system – and, finally, Papua New Guinea. That’s it!

Draw your own conclusions.

And please don’t insult our intelligence.

The system is complicated and will result in much dearer elections.

This referendum should have been about the EU, not AV.

Paul Haussauer, The Green, Leafield

Many people seem to be confused about which way to vote in the forthcoming referendum on adopting the AV system.

The following extract is from a missive sent to hunts by the Master of Foxhounds Association: “A ‘yes’ vote would make it unlikely that there would ever again be a majority government with the interests of hunting and the countryside at heart.

Instead the AV system... could give the opportunity for vested interests that are against hunting shooting, fishing and other activities to have a disproportionate influence on the government of the day.”

Most people are opposed to hunting, and a significant number of people are passionately opposed to it, so the fact that hunters will be turning out to vote ‘no’ may very well prompt many in turn to go and vote ‘yes’.

Penny Little, Back Way, Great Haseley

THE letter from Timothy J Oates is very much to the point.

I have been, since 1945, a supporter of genuine democracy. You cannot have it if the House of Commons does not reflect proportionally the political views of the people who voted.

It’s as simple as that.

The Alternative Vote, which is what the referendum on May 5 is about, is not the same thing as proportional representation. But it is a small step in the right direction. That is why I have postally voted ‘yes’ to AV.

I hope all your intelligent readers will do the same.

M HUGH-JONES, Headley Way, Oxford