The disenfranchisement of more than 100,000 electors by the inadquacies of the balloting and counting procedures was bad enough, but doesn't Mike Dailly, the solicitor at Govan Law Centre (The Herald, May 7), realise his proposal that 9000 electors be contacted by the returning officer to "ascertain their clear intentions" poses an even greater threat to our democratic freedoms than the original cock-up?

If we can identify from a number on the ballot papers the identity of each voter, then a terrifying potential is created by his ill-considered proposal. Imagine a fictional country that was edging gradually towards an elective dictatorship, one where a powerful Prime Minister, aided by a compliant chief law officer, had been gradually eroding the democratic and legal rights of its citizens (sound familiar?). Then consider what such a Prime Minister, faced with a loss of a key part of his power base, could do with the opportunity to go back to each elector whose vote he didn't like and say: "Did you really mean it? What were your true voting intentions?"

We have already had insidious voices suggesting that those who had trouble with the ballot papers perhaps were not intelligent enough to be allowed a vote, and now we are faced with this appalling proposal. It must not be countenanced under any circumstances. Scotland has just made a great thrust for freedom from the old machine politics. Let us not allow our embarrassment and frustration at the flawed nature of the balloting system lead us into greater threats to that freedom.

Peter Curran, 1B Main Street, Kirkliston.

It has been suggested (The Herald, May 7) that some 9000 voters in the Glasgow list election, whose voting papers were discounted, may be contacted to ascertain their clear voting intention as part of a legal challenge to the election. Presumably, the intent is to allow the revised opinion of those voters then to adjust retrospectively the count and consequently the result of that ballot.

Such a course of action would undermine the democratic process and set a dubious precedent for future elections as those 9000 individuals would now be influenced by the overall results from Thursday, and their opportunity to recast their votes with that knowledge would be denied to the rest of us. Free and fair elections mean not only a secret ballot but one free from unwarranted influence.

C Carr, Turretbank Drive, Crieff.

Quite apart from Nicol Stephen's effrontery in thinking he can, on behalf of the Liberal Democrats, deprive us of our right to vote in a constitutional referendum, how can Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre think he can oblige a returning officer to contact all the voters of "spoiled" papers in order to ascertain their intentions?

This would be like asking certain examination candidates to resit the exam after they had had an opportunity to study the answers. In these circumstances, some people might wish to change their vote.

A D Lambie, Tigh Voulin, Thornhill, Stirling.