JAMES Slack says, in his Saturday column: "Not content with his healthy majority, Mike Foster..."

With due respect to our MP, and Mr Slack, I should like to point out that Mr Foster did not get the votes of a majority of the electorate in Worcester.

Mr Foster received 21,479 votes, whereas there were 22,732 votes cast against him - so isn't writing a "healthy majority" misleading?

Because of our voting system, it's no longer a democratic reflection of the will of the people.

Mr Foster has become our MP on a minority of the votes actually cast.

Is this democratic, especially when it is applied, seat-by-seat, across our nation?

Plummeting

The politicians criticised the people for the low turn-out at the General Election.

Isn't the turn-out plummeting because of the contempt millions now feel for politicians and the way the actual election is rigged time and time again, by our electoral system?

Is it decent, or honest, or just, for any political party to form our nation's government, with a huge majority, on a minority of the votes cast?

Isn't our "democracy" in fact already seen as corrupt by millions of voters who will not use their votes, in what is increasingly seen, by millions of non-voters, as the equivalent of banana republic elections?

N TAYLOR,

Worcester.