IN reply to the letter from Eric Walker (Your Views, March 31). "Majority Rule" in the British electoral system has always meant rule by the party commanding an overall majority of parliamentary seats.

The system slowly evolved in a very different age when there were only two parties, the Tories and the Whigs, who eventually became the Liberals.

It is now totally inappropriate when most constituencies are contested by a minimum of three candidates.

In almost all cases the elected government now achieves less than 50 per cent of the total vote. Such governments are "undemocratic", being supported by only a minority of the voters

In well over a century no ruling party ever held the support of even 50 per cent of voters. The only other governments supported by at least 51 per cent of voters were also coalitions, as in the National Government of the thirties and during the last war.

If alternatively, by "majority rule", we really mean that which is supported by most of the citizens voting, then the present coalition satisfies this criterion. 59 per cent of electors actually voted for a Conservative or Lib Dem candidate.

However, the problems with the result of 2010 are that compromises have been made and unambiguous manifesto pledges abandoned, both without consultation with the electorate.

We now have a government voted for by a clear majority of the electors but not on the policies that were put before them.

These consequences are a direct result of our outdated election process and should convince the open-minded of the need for a system more in accord with how things are, not how we believe them to be.

Under the present system many citizens are effectively disenfranchised by a form of post-code lottery whereby, in some constituencies, anti-Conservative votes are worthless as are anti-Labour votes in others.

In my youth such constituencies were described by the phrase: "If they put up a pig they would vote for it provided it was wearing the correct colours."

To leave the system as it is will, I believe, lead to a gradual alienation of the electorate as the result of a continuing succession of minority governments pursuing policies based more on political dogma, and sectional interest than any consideration for the good of the state as a whole or the majority of its citizens.

As I understand it, the proposed new system at least ensures that all candidates ultimately elected always command the support of at least 51% of those voting in a constituency and, more importantly, the policies they represent.

JACK MILLER Orford Avenue Radcliffe on Trent

JOE Phillips, letter, "Hard to believe he was serious" (Your Views, March 16), merits a brief reply and a short history lesson.

Political structures in Egypt have changed little in 5,400 years. In 3000 BC the reign of the Pharaohs was established and continued until the early 1950s. Five natural leaders have come to power since then and little has changed since 3000 BC. Buy a plane ticket tomorrow and see for yourself.

DANIEL FARRINGTON Poplar Avenue Sandiacre

I AM pleased but slightly perplexed that Joe Phillips liked my comments regards my opposition to homosexuality (Your Views, March 29).

In an earlier reply, Joe Phillips drew a comparison between opposition to homosexuals as being the same as opposition to the women's suffrage movement in the early 1900s.

In response I did state that I considered that analogy to be illogical, ill-conceived and a poor attempt at character assassination.

Undeterred, Joe Phillips has reassessed my opposition to homosexuality as being similar to the Taliban's opposition to women's rights.

I believe we are reaching the realm of absurdity when an anti-gay agenda is observed as having links to the moral code of a fundamentalist, terrorist organisation.

Finally, Joe Phillips states that many fundamental beliefs in Britain of the past are now considered laughable. If Joe Phillips thinks my moral objection to homosexuality is laughable permit me to amuse him/her further. I am also morally opposed to paedophilia, necrophilia, bestiality etc.

That should keep them laughing for a while.

M BAMFORD Grange Close Lambley

BY 2013 the NHS is to completely change, in just 18 months' time.

In future, local doctors will form consortiums to take over the administration, will be responsible for buying all the medical treatment from hospitals and free to buy that treatment from whoever comes in at the lowest price, private or NHS.

As I see it, this is like Marks & Spencer directors deciding they don't want to carry on running the business, so tell the staff in each shop to liaise with fellow management and workers, contact other M&S shops in their area and localise the business, with no central administration.

Is there a local MP or doctor who will write to the Post and put my, and I'm sure other readers', minds at rest?

I feel the British people are walking blindly into a life-changing situation, which no party put into their manifesto.

If this goes wrong, there's no way back, private medical insurance will be the future, and I'm old enough to remember when that was around. Believe me, you don't want it.

JOE PHILLIPS Windsor Court Bingham

IT is understandable how C Desmond's letter favours wind power (Your Views, March 22). The fact is, the EU keenly promotes it, and that makes me adversely cynical. I trust the Centre for Policy Studies as they have exposed how the government will be over-dependent on many thousands of unreliable, intrusive and expensive wind turbines.

The UK should examine other reliable forms of energy such as tidal, nuclear and clean coal options.

Wind energy is supposedly clean and free. They tell us it will lessen the reliance on fossil fuels, reduce greenhouse gases and other such pollution.

The money would be better spent on supporting new technologies allowing the development of tried and tested means of electricity generation.

Today, there are fewer than 2,000 wind turbines, but the government wants upwards of 10,000 new turbines to be erected across the UK.

This increase is due to Britain being given strict EU targets to generate 15% of all energy from renewable sources by 2020, meaning 40% of power will come from wind. Local planners will have very little say and will become unpopular.

This increase in wind generators requires substantial increases in the amount of money taken from our electricity bills to subsidise wind farms through the Renewables Obligation.

Wind generation is an intermittent source of power, and will require boosting by thermal power stations, like nuclear and coal.

An over-reliance on wind could lead to power stoppages ie when there is no wind, or high-demand episodes during cold and hot weather.

Periods of low wind could raise carbon emissions as power stations are needed as back-up.

The Royal Academy of Engineering calculates the cheapest form of wind energy is two-and-a-half times dearer than electricity generated by nuclear or coal.

NIGEL J STARBUCK Carnarvon Close

Bingham

BEHIND horse racing's glamorous facade lays a catalogue of suffering and death.

According to national campaign group Animal Aid, around 420 horses are raced to death every year.

Some 38% of these fatalities occur during, or immediately after, a race, and result from a broken leg, back, neck or pelvis, fatal spinal injuries, exhaustion, heart attack or burst blood vessels. The other victims perish from training injuries or are killed after being assessed by their owners as no-hopers.

The punishing Grand National is Britain's longest horse race, covering a distance of four miles and 856 yards. The horses are required to jump 30 formidable obstacles, some of which include perilous drops, ditches and sharp turns. Forty horses usually take part, an excessively crowded field, which adds to the risk.

Thirty-one horses were killed at the three-day Aintree event between 2000 and 2010.

This "sport" is only kept alive through betting income and course attendance fees. Please don't back the cruelty, for you it's only a harmless flutter, but horses could pay with their lives.

ROBERT MASSEY Willoughby Court Lenton

I SHARE county councillor Alan Rhodes's claim about party political spin on Conservative budget cuts presented in the most recent edition of County News, and I agree with him that no party can be allowed to use public money to promote its own policy agenda.

Borough councillor Sam Boote's suggestion that all council-funded newsletters should be abolished and replaced solely by individual councillors' own publicity (Your Views, 26 March) may not however prove to be the panacea that it first appears.

I believe local electors want their representatives to present the facts surrounding local issues in an objective manner (avoiding the temptation to "rewrite history" when it suits them) and not cynically pursue "populist" causes.

Unfortunately, some Liberal Democrats have "form" in this area. The Keyworth Liberal Democrats' latest Focus newsletter included enthusiastic support for the Westminster Tory-Lib Dem government's cuts programme, but also sought to criticise the ruling Conservatives at Rushcliffe Borough Council for pushing through their charge for the green bin.

I suggest that they too need to credit voters with a bit more intelligence and help restore the trust in politics that they claim is their aim.

ROBERT CROSBY Walton Drive Keyworth