Letter: Push back the boundaries of debate on voting reform
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: As a Liberal Democrat who joined the Liberal Party back in the 1950s precisely because it favoured proportional representation I welcome any discussion of the subject.
Andrew Marr ("Changing the chemistry of politics", 2 April) is wrong in one important assessment of STV when he says it would require redrawing every constituency boundary. All one needs to do is lump together existing single-member constituencies into multi-member ones, five or six members per enlarged seat being the favoured number, but perhaps not desirable for very rural areas where size might present problems.
Boundaries between present constituencies are often so arbitrary as to be daft, lines drawn on a map to try to create clumps of land with roughly equivalent numbers of inhabitants without reference to natural boundaries such as rivers, limits of built-up areas, postcodes or directions in which most people commute to work.
Martin Kyrle
Eastleigh, Hampshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments