The Electoral Reform Society’s contention that proportional representation would hinder the success of the British National Party (First, Issue 189) is a misleading claim. In reality, proportional representation would entail the election of more extremists, poisoning Britain’s political system.

In the 2003 Scottish Parliamentary elections, the Additional Member System form of PR gave representation to minority parties with as little as 5% of the regional constituency vote. In the Northern Ireland elections last year, the Single Transferable Vote, as favoured by the ERS, elected minority parties with an aggregate vote of just 7% of first preferences. In the forthcoming European Parliamentary elections, the d’Hondt Party List system of PR could allow a party to get elected with as little as 8% of the vote.

By contrast, in the 2003 local elections, the BNP averaged 17% of the vote in wards they contested. And as the anti-fascist magazine, Searchlight, has recently warned in relation to this year’s GLA elections, “proportional representation will hand the BNP an Assembly place simply if it reaches the 5% threshold. Given its support in East and Outer East London, this is quite feasible.”

By comparison, Britain’s traditional voting system, First Past the Post, makes it far more difficult for extremists to get an electoral foothold. The sad and unfortunate fact is the BNP only won 13 seats in the 2003 local elections since they obtained an average of 38 per cent of the vote in wards they won (reaching as high as 52 per cent in one ward).

Rather than fiddling with the electoral system, all mainstream parties would do better to tackle the voter alienation and disillusionment that fuels support for extremism.

Cllr Sheridan Westlake