Adam Trimingham wrote that Steve Rayson and Howard Attree are in favour of a mayor because it would save money (October 3).

"The primary reason is fewer committees, fewer councillors and less bureaucracy," they were reported as saying.

What they were really saying was that when you do away with democratic process you can save money. It didn't work in the former Soviet Union, so why should it work here?

A directly-elected mayor, one elected by a minority of people purely because voter apathy is now so great, will not be an asset to the city of Brighton and Hove.

Bear in mind, the last referendum held in the city was to move a football ground and led to less than 40 per cent of the population voting.

Prior to that (concerning the future of Brighton, Hove and East Sussex), the decision of the vote was ignored. The solution was never under discussion.

This is what could happen when democracy is eroded, as would happen with an executive mayor rather than our existing non-executive (in a business sense) one.

-Simon Benson, Coleman Avenue, Hove