We shouldn’t need to vote tactically to make ourselves heard

Letters to the editor: our readers share their views. Please send your letters to letters@independent.co.uk

They are not going to change the voting system to one which makes it harder for them to win a majority (Getty/PA)

I have now read a few articles about tactical voting. I do vote tactically with the view to stop the candidate who belongs to the party I do not want in power from winning a seat. The party I end up voting for does not always represent my views, and is considered the least bad choice to make my vote count.

I don’t think this is very democratic. I should be able to vote for the candidate who aligns closely with my views and will not be a wasted vote. In my view, the current first past the post system only really serves the two-party duopoly that we have.

The public should realise that those two parties are not going to change the voting system to one which makes it harder for them to win a majority.

An example of our non-representative system is that in 2010 UKIP had 919,546 votes and no seats; while the Scottish National Party had 491,386 votes and six seats. This is wrong.

Even if we get a chance for electoral reform, it is unlikely to be supported by the two parties that have the most to lose. They will use their party machines to persuade the electorate it is a bad idea.

I think that having a party that only achieved 43.6 per cent of the vote to have a 56.2 per cent majority in the House of Commons is wrong. The UK needs electoral reform and a system that actually represents the views of the electorate and not a system that supports a duopoly.

Barry Charters

Bristol

We need to seriously rethink the Grand National

The protesters at Aintree are very courageous people, and their cause is humane and just. They faced arrest by hostile police, including being manhandled by both police and some racegoers, the ire of punters and the usual tidal wave of trolling on social media.

Despite all this, they made their point calmly and eloquently. The death of a horse at the first jump of the Grand National poignantly demonstrates how right the protesters are.

The Grand National is in fact a national disgrace, and the whole racing/betting industry needs stringent control. Speaking for myself, I’d be glad to see it finished for good. Tough luck for the thoughtless punters, but the tiniest of violins will suffice for their disappointment.

Penny Little

Great Haseley

We must stop romanticising the exploitation of animals

The latest Aintree death toll for racehorses over the Grand National weekend was a sad reminder that despite the romantic schtick which accompanies the event, the horses are routinely put into situations where they can be killed for our entertainment.

Desperately trying to retrieve the situation we heard a spokesperson on the BBC from the veterinary team attending the racing that “these horses love to race”.

I bet they do. Remove the jockey and does anyone imagine these fine animals would gallop around Aintree just for the sheer joy of jumping fences and getting to the finish line?

Let’s get real here: these horses are mere expendable collateral in a money game. Even my local pub was offering a sweepstake with a £10 bonus for the gambler who picked the first “faller”. We even grimly bet on which is the first horse to be injured.

Steve Mackinder

Denver

Real justice for Finley Boden will require answering some hard questions

Looking at the reports of the Finley Boden case, and other past cases of the same nature, it strikes me that the media are very quick to blame social workers in these cases.

However, they attach very little to those who made the decision to return this little boy to his parents contrary to the recommendations as to timing put forward by Social Services, if I understand the background to this case correctly.

John Lewis

Address supplied