You report (Voters to get Schwarzenegger-style power, 30 September) that Gordon Brown's proposal for a referendum on changing the voting system to the alternative vote (AV) is considered by "purists" not to amount to proportional representation (PR) "because there would not be multi-member constituencies, elected for example on the single transferable vote, or a top-up list". Actually AV is not considered by any electoral reformer – pure or impure – to amount to PR because, put simply, it is not proportional. In fact AV tends – by essentially providing for automatic tactical voting where second preferences are used – to enhance swings against incumbent governments and could well lead to a Commons that reflects even less the country's preferences.
You also report that the use of transferable votes in a single member constituency would mean that "MPs in each constituency would be elected on a more proportional basis". No system can deliver proportionality in a single seat with a single member. Under AV, the most preferred of the top two candidates in each seat is elected, but proportional it ain't.
In any event, in 1997 the Labour party made a manifesto commitment to a referendum on real PR which it then proceeded blatantly to abrogate, with no apology. In fact, 12 years on we still have hereditary peers and an otherwise appointed upper house. Parties that break promises over constitutional reform must suffer the consequence. Any reform-minded floating voters have every reason to reject Labour next year on the basis of its record or its plans.
Dr Evan Harris MP
Lib Dem, Oxford West and Abingdon
Polly Toynbee, Alan Johnson and perhaps most Guardian readers would like a referendum on electoral reform on the same day as the general election. Sadly, this is a non-runner. First, there is nearly no chance that the necessary legislation for a referendum could be got through in time. It might fail in the Commons but almost certainly would in the Lords, where crossbenchers would join with the Tories to demand the proposal be given more consideration before proceeding.
Second, if it did go through, the odds are that the referendum would not be won, since the compelling argument for radical reform would be drowned out by the shrill partisanship of the election debate.
Third, even if it was won, the Tories, who are expected to win the election, would ignore the result on the basis that such a referendum at the fag-end of a parliament lacked legitimacy.
The referendum on AV proposed by Gordon Brown for the next parliament certainly does not go as far as we reformers would like. But it has the advantage that AV is the minimum reform which most of us support and the maximum that first-past-the-posters will live with. It would mean that every MP had the support of at least half of his or her electorate, and it would also make it far harder for the British National party to win seats.
David Lipsey
House of Lords
Gordon Brown's conference speech promise of a manifesto commitment to a referendum on voting reform certainly rang hollow. By the time of the next election Labour will have been in power for 13 years without having delivered on a similar promise made in 1997.
Brown's reference to electoral reform must, however, be welcomed as it signifies that how we elect our MPs is back on the agenda. But if Labour wants to show it is really serious about changing our style of politics it needs to act now, rather than waiting until after an election that it might not win.
Labour still has time to enact legislation for a referendum, either on election day, or on some date after the election, and it still has time to start the process of deliberation and consultation that should precede the vote. That process must include setting up a "citizens' convention" to ensure that the referendum question is determined by ordinary voters and not simply by the tastes or prejudices of cabinet members.
Dr Ken Ritchie
Peter Facey