‘The fundamental problem with first past the post is that millions of votes have little bearing on parliament.’Why a PR voting system is the best bet for Britain Tom Walker responds to a letter that said first past the post is the lesser of two evils for voters. Plus letters from Susanna Dammann Steve Smart It is common in the argument against proportional representation (PR) to reach for Italy as a cautionary tale, as Gian Lorenzo Spisso does in his letter ( A proportional representation voting system could spell disaster for Labour, 30 September ). The irony is that Italy does not actually have a proportional system: it has a mixed system. If we want to assess PR, we should look at countries that actually use it – Germany, Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark – hardly synonymous with political instability.

Also, small parties or weak local representation are not unique to PR. The tiny Democratic Unionist party held the balance of power at Westminster less than a decade ago under first past the post (FPTP), while the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru wield influence disproportionate to their UK-wide vote because their support is geographically concentrated.

Germany limits fragmentation with a minimum electoral threshold. And systems such as Germany’s combine PR with constituency MPs, while Ireland’s single transferable vote system retains a strong geographical link between voters and representatives.

Gian’s letter does raise a more interesting point: FPTP encourages major parties to contain competing tendencies within broad internal coalitions rather than allowing them to form separate parties. But is it preferable for those coalitions to be internal and opaque, forcing voters into tactical choices, rather than external and explicit, requiring parties to negotiate and find common ground?

The fundamental problem with FPTP is that millions of votes have little bearing on parliament. If your preferred candidate has no realistic chance of winning, voting for them does not translate into representation. In 2024, Labour 33.7% of votes cast but 63.2% of the seats. That distortion is not a minor technical flaw. Who wields power depends heavily on where votes are cast rather than who people vote for. This disconnect is precisely why Britain needs electoral reform.

The question isn’t whether PR is perfect, but whether we can design a system in which parliament reflects the votes people actually cast. Other stable democracies do so. Britain can too.

London Re Gian Lorenzo Spisso’s letter and Zoe Williams’ article ( Electoral reform could be a gamble too far for Burnham, 30 September ), there are several reasons for the UK to adopt a more proportional voting system of which the most important is the moral one: it’s fairer.

In the last general election, the current system gave us a government that only about 20% of the electorate had voted for. No wonder the public has been hostile since the start of this administration: almost 80% of us didn’t vote for it.

There are other, more pragmatic reasons, particularly for those of us on the centre/soft left: if we are anxious to avoid having an extreme party in power, we need to ditch first past the post – and fast. Reform UK may be lagging a little in the polls at the moment, but with £76m behind them, they may be able to mount a campaign of mis- and disinformation that could persuade 30% of the electorate to vote for them – and they might win. If we don’t want an extreme right (or left) party in power, we need a way to elect MPs that reflects that view. We need proportional representation.

Of course, not all PR systems are the same. Italy uses a mixed system similar to the one used in Scotland for elections to Holyrood. However, as a report published by Make Votes Matter on possible future electoral systems points out, the Italian system “tilts the playing field rather than levelling it”. Its results do not reflect the views of the Italian population accurately.

The crucial effect of any proportional system that meets the criteria of the “good systems agreement” (which sets out the standards that a system should meet to be considered by the proposed national commission) is to encourage cross-party collaboration and cooperation. It undermines the tit-for-tat squabbling so typical of our House of Commons and reduces the policy flip-flop of right-left-right administrations that makes it so hard for businesses, and individuals, to plan long term. It is precisely that collaborative, creative approach to policy that would encourage the stability and prosperity our people are longing for.

Gian Lorenzo Spisso’s letter arguing against proportional representation voting in the UK is superficial and wrong-headed. Up and down the country there are huge numbers of voters like me whose entire lifetime has been spent thoroughly fed up with our unfair system. I am 79 now, and my vote has never elected an MP since I lived in an urban area private rental in my early 20s.

As a middle-class, left-leaning voter living in mainly middle-class towns and suburbs, my vote has been wasted in a succession of places. Of course PR could elect a rightwing government; it could also lock the right wing out of power for a long time, and as a democratic socialist I would be happy to live with the prospect of a long-term progressive coalition. PR would also give the Greens the scale of representation in parliament that their increasing national support deserves.

Malvern, Worcestershire