Voting for what you believe in

There are two things I have never understood about arguments for electoral reform.

One is the claim that votes only 'count' if the Party and candidate you vote for is elected. This is absurd. The purpose of democratic elections is to make a choice between Parties and manifestos. If you do not vote - or if you spoil your ballot paper - you choose not to make your vote or have it counted. If you vote, it is counted, and your vote does 'count' and contribute to the result at every level.

Democratically, the challenge we face is the disengagement with politics which means many people do not vote. Last year, a low turnout gave us the new Cornwall Council elected by a minority of the electorate.

So here is one of my wishes for the general election - I hope people will take part and vote, as they queued up to do in the most recent American presidential election. In this new constituency, if the student population registers and votes, they could determine the outcome of the election.

The second thing I don't understand about arguments for electoral reform is why anyone thinks being asked to vote for more than one Party would make your vote 'count' more, because - like tactical voting - it is a systematic dilution and distortion of choice at an election.

And while we are talking about non-choices - people in Cornwall don't want a playground politics, where Lib/Con Party hacks swap taunts that their campaign chiefs are 'fatty', 'lardy', or dementing because they are standing on the same ground and treading on each others toes. If you don't have anything more worth saying, why bother opening your mouth.

No matter how many times the Lib/Con double act write to me, I will stand, fight, and vote for what I believe in - Labour.