ALEX Folkes (Your Letters, June 4) rightly points out that the turnout rates for the local elections were alarmingly low, but I do not agree that electoral reform would solve the problem.

Undoubtedly the first-past-the-post system has its flaws. Many votes are wasted and the victory of the winning party is usually grossly exaggerated. In addition there are many "safe seats" when people fail to turn up because they believe that their vote will make no difference.

However, it is too easy to criticise this system without suggesting a better alternative. There are many forms of proportional representation and, in general, I would argue that these are much worse than first-past-the-post.

There are many advantages of our current system which need to recognised. First and foremost, it is a simple system which everyone understands. It enables the voter to choose a particular candidate as well as a political party (a feature lost under the new "closed list" system for the European elections). The fact that it can give the winning party a large majority merely means that we usually have a strong and decisive executive. As for PR, we already have clear evidence of its disadvantages in the recently-elected Scottish Parliament. Although Labour won more seats than any other party, it did not win enough to achieve a majority. If Labour is to enjoy any power in Scotland it will need to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats - this essentially means that anyone who voted Liberal Democrat may as well have voted Labour.

Our current system produces a decisive result so there is no need for politicians to strike deals with each other. Systems of PR also have the danger or producing unstable government; this being evident in Italy where there has been an average of more than one general election every year since the Second World War. It is not surprising that the Italian people are in favour of returning to first-past-the-post.

In the 1997 General Election the turnout was only 71 per cent, the lowest since the war. It is easy to blame the electoral system but, in reality, the low turnouts are due to a long-term declining public interest in politics. In the 1950 election, the turnout was 84 per cent.

In the recent local elections the turnout in Tottington ward was a mere 30 per cent. This is a safe Conservative seat and some would argue that the low turnout was due to Labour voters knowing that their vote would make not difference. Yet, historically, Tottington has had turnouts well in excess of 50 per cent and it has always been a safe Tory seat.

There is no such thing as a perfect electoral system, so let us make the best of what we have, a system which has served us well for centuries.

PETER EDWARDS,

Holcombe Road,

Greenmount,

Bury.

Converted for the new archive on 14 July 2000. Some images and formatting may have been lost in the conversion.