IF there is one thing more important than deciding whether to vote Labour, Conservative, Liberal Democrat, UKIP, Raving Monster Loony Party or whoever on May 5, it is that people vote at all.

Politicians who have spent months at each others throats over the NHS, taxes, education and crime have stood shoulder to shoulder to drum home the message.

Pop idols, actors, sports stars and business bosses have lined up to tell voters, especially first-time ones, why it is essential they vote a week on Thursday.

Unhappy about the Iraq war? Concerned about yobs frightening your grandparents? Worried about the local hospital closing?

Unless you exercise your greatest freedom by switching off the telly, walking to the polling station and marking an 'X' on a ballot paper, you have no right to moan about the Government "never listening".

Turnout at the last election was woeful. A post-war low of just 59.4 per cent - down from 71.4 per cent in 1997.

Political analysts were quick to pinpoint the blame. A hapless Conservative Opposition coupled with a conviction Labour would win by a landslide led millions of voters to conclude, "What's the point?".

But a report by the Electoral Reform Society, published this week, suggests another reason.

According to the society, only two of nine Parliamentary seats in North Yorkshire are up for grabs because of Britain's unfair electoral system. Campaigners claim the "first-past-the-post" system means six constituencies are already "foregone conclusions" - with polling day less than two weeks away. The society said: "Support for one party or another is so strong that, barring a political earthquake or personal scandal, the dominant party's candidate will win and will win comfortably." Voters had "no chance of influencing the election result" - contributing to apathy, as the parties concentrated on floating voters in marginal constituencies elsewhere.

The "dead certs" are Labour-held City of York and Lib Dem-controlled Harrogate plus five Tory strongholds - Ryedale, Vale of York, Richmond, Skipton and Ripon, and Yorkshire East. But the two constituencies in the melting pot are Selby, where Labour's John Grogan has a wafer-thin 2,138 majority, and Scarborough and Whitby, where Labour's Lawrie Quinn is defending a 3,585 lead.

Both were unprecedented Labour gains in the landslide election victory of 1997. And both are vulnerable if there is a Tory revival.

Such is the nature of Britain's electoral system that only about 800,000 voters, about two per cent, in marginal seats like these can hope to make a difference. This is where the General Election will be won or lost.

People in these constituencies are being wooed most enthusiastically by the parties, aware that safer seats with larger majorities are less crucial to whether Tony Blair, Michael Howard or (less realistically) Charles Kennedy enters 10 Downing Street on May 6.

In the battle for hearts and minds, the parties are targeting their resources at a minority of key marginals.

More money is being hurled at these swing seats. Selby and Scarborough are more likely to receive visits from Cabinet ministers and members of the Shadow Cabinet.

The main parties are ratcheting up door-knocking and telephone canvassing. They have used state-of-the-art computer programmes to identify "floating" voters, based on shopping and reading habits.

The Electoral Reform Society favours a shake-up of the voting system. Its favoured method - the single transferable vote - allows voters to rank candidates in large, multi-candidate constituencies.

When Blair came to power in 1997, the Labour manifesto promised a referendum on switching to proportional representation to elect MPs.

But a report by Labour former Home Secretary Roy Jenkins was shelved, partly because of the fierce opposition of Labour MPs.

In its 2005 manifesto, Labour is committed only to "reviewing the experience" of new electoral systems introduced in Scotland, Wales and London.

Nina Temple, of the pressure group Make Votes Count, said: "'It is scandalous to see how Britain's democracy is shrinking. No wonder so many people think that voting doesn't make a difference."

At the moment, it is true all voters are equal. But some are more equal than others.

Updated: 09:31 Friday, April 22, 2005