This may appear to be an unusual start for discussing the failings of our political system and the choices we are required to make at the ballot box, but let's take the article "Choose your all-time top Sussex team" (Sports Argus, May 13)

According to the article, the position of first opening bat lies between four players nominated by The Argus.

We are invited to choose one of the four, so it won't be based on who we would pick but rather who we think is the best of the nominated candidates - so the final result will be meaningless - for the record I would nominate John Langridge - so what is the point in me voting?

The same argument applies in our "democratic" system. At an election, a bunch of candidates selected by others is dished up and more often than not they are people who may have tinkered with a profession or job for a while before deciding professional politics is their career.

All discussions I have had with people suggest that the electorate is not apathetic but frustrated.

Counter to Simon Boyd's idea that voters should have to pass exams (Letters, May 13), I would suggest it should be prospective candidates who are tested for suitability for the job - let us see their CVs.

Each party should adopt a modified politically-correct approach as follows: Regardless of sex, ethnic origin or religion, the best qualified candidate gets the nomination.

-Brian Beck, Lewes