If someone who is able to get to a polling station to vote does not do so, it will be for one of two reasons. The first is that they deliberately stay away because they are unimpressed by any of the candidates or parties, they feel the result is a foregone conclusion or something similar. That is their right, and it is up to the parties and the politicians to raise the standard to entice them back.

The other is that they are too idle or apathetic to bother.

Am I the only one who feels that if someone who is physically able to do so, can't be bothered to get up off their backsides to get to a polling station they don't deserve a vote? Why is it even being contemplated to bring the vote to them, via postal votes, textphone, internet or telephone so they can vote without effort? Did the campaigners of the nineteenth and early-twentieth century fight for universal suffrage just so the lazy could say, "I'll vote if it's brought to me, but not if I have to go out?" And, in any case, how much attention have these people paid to the campaigns in the run-up to the election?

The vote is precious, the electors are, after all, choosing the government - local or national. What is wrong with confining it to those who are willing to go to vote?

We should return to giving postal votes only to those unable to get to a polling station, either because they are disabled or away from home on election day, and leave telephone and internet voting to Big Brother evictions.

Dallas Carter, 117 Calder Tower, Motherwell.