I AM replying to your article (LET, January 20) referring to the report issued by the Electoral Reform Society entitled "Burnley and the BNP and the case for Electoral Reform." The suggestion from the Electoral Reform Society is that as the BNP did not poll over 50 per cent of the vote in the seats they have won that there is now something undemocratic in the way that we have won our seats.

They pointedly ignore the fact that most of the councillors and MPs elected in this country, of all persuasions, are elected with substantially less than 50 per cent, yet this system has served the country for many many years.

The authors of the report, having decided our electoral system is flawed, rather than argue that change is required because the system is faulty are arguing that changing the system may be the best way of keeping limits on the power of the BNP.

If this is serving the democratic process, they have me baffled, and, when they've finished with the BNP, who do they pick on next? The political landscape of this country must be allowed to grow naturally.

First past the post may have its imperfections but I think no more than any other system and at least people can understand it.

I would be happy to debate alternatives but this must be the merits or demerits of a particular system, not to limit the power of a legitimately-elected group.

Coun LEN STARR, British National Party, Burnley Council.