Dear Sir/Madam,

Hopefully the results of yesterdays by-elections will shame the present government into taking electoral reform more seriously (Labour holds Boothroyd seat, 24 November 2000).

If my calculations are correct, with a reported voter turnout of 27.6%, West Bromwich West will now be represented in the House of Commons by  a gentleman (Adrian Bailey) who was voted for by a mere 14% of his
electorate.

Free elections are just one, but nevertheless vital, function of the body politic, in which voter turnout represents its pulse.

To my mind, anything below than 70% is less than health; below 60% turnout should cause grave concern prompting urgent medical attention; and when it falls below 50% a priest should be informed.

So how does British democracy manage to survive with such a feeble pulse?

It does it though a chronic lack of vitality - something we are so used to that we think it is normal.

If you were to show an ancient Greek what we call "democracy" he would laugh his head off (not withstanding the fact that many aspects of our society are far more civilised than his). Democracy requires the active participation of its citizens; if it doesn't get it, it is something less than a true democracy.

A Labour Party spokesman puts the blame for low turnout on peoples' "apathy", but he needs to ask himself WHY there is so much apathy.

I can only speak for myself, but before I moved to Germany (which has a much fairer and more democratic electoral system, and thus much higher voter turnouts) I didn't vote in British elections because the only choice I had was between Labour and Conservative, which at the time was no choice at all. Now I might choose the lesser evil and vote Labour, unless the Liberal Democrats had a chance of winning, whom I would vote for simply because they support electoral reform. My party of choice would be the Green Party, but voting for them would be a complete waste of time (and vote) since, despite the fact that they might get more than 10% of the popular vote, they do not have the remotest chance of winning a single seat in Parliament .

Call that democracy if you like. I call it a sham. 

What is stopping electoral reform is simple to see: the current inadequate, unjust and - let's face it - undemocratic system heavily favours the two largest parties, who at the same time, when they are in power,  are the only ones who can change it.

My hope is that the next general election will produce a hung parliament, in which the Liberal Democrats will be able to force through legislation providing for a much fairer electoral system, one which gives small parties - like the Greens - the prospect of winning seats in parliament.

In the meantime, the media, including you at the Telegraph, might promote awareness of the need for electoral reform by always citing, when referring to an MP, the percentage of the electorate who actually voted for him.

For example: Mr Adrian Bailey (Lab/14%), Member for West Bromwich West, . . .