We gave Labor a majority government last time and a Labor-controlled assembly before that, and they, like successive Liberal governments before them, have abused the privilege. I say this as a Labor voter.

Both major parties have damaged the education, planning, health, aged care, transportation (roads and buses) and housing (affordable and public) responsibilities over the past decade.

Teachers, nurses and other critical roles are underpaid while the MLAs and department heads get larger salary increases and redundancy packages.

The Libs are acting as if they will save education with more schools and smaller classes; who can forget the original ''Save our Schools'' rallies?

Whoever gets in, if they are to have a majority government, will go on ignoring residents' and voters' desires for another four years.

The Libs have been at each other's throats for years and have had as many scandals as Labor. Jon Stanhope's arrogance is nearly as bad as Kate Carnell's was at the height of her power. So don't vote for a candidate because they represent a particular party, vote for candidates who will contribute to making the ACT a better, more equitable place to live.

Many of the candidates are standing for re-election after years of under-performance, such as Liberals Brendan Smyth, Steve Pratt, Jacquie Burke and Vicki Dunn, along with Labor's John Hargreaves, Simon Corbell and Andrew Barr.

Others who will re-contest the election are only names on a web page who are they?

ACT residents: mix up your preferences so that we get a more balanced Assembly and hopefully a consensus government and some fresh and competent talent.

Keith Hume, Bonython

Party voters decide

In his article ''Core Values Key to US Contest'' (August 2, pB7), Jonathon Burton Macleod champions the election swinging power of ''the all-important centrist voter'' and he bases his argument that the United States election race is close around the observation that ''more often than not the king-making power rests in the hands of the all-important centrist voter''.

However, the past few US elections have not necessarily been determined by the swinging power of the centrist voters, but rather by the voting turnout of a party's political base.

In 2000, George W.Bush ''won'' because his party was able to mobilise the evangelical Republican voter base and many ''centrist'' voters stayed at home, resulting in an exceptionally low turnout for the election.

So which party has mobilised its supporters more effectively in 2008?

From January 3 through to February 5, Democratic turnout exceeded Republican turnout 19.1 million to 13.1 million, which means John McCain would have to pick up huge numbers of ''centrist'' voters to compensate for his party's demoralised, fractured state.

McCain hasn't got much to offer centrist voters either, since the only issue where he leads in polling is fighting terrorism, while Barack Obama is more popular on all matters non-military. Obama's fund-raising advantage and the strength of his volunteer movement ensures a high Democratic turnout. The Republican turnout was higher than Democrat in just six states during the 2008 primaries, a reminder ''centrist'' voters are pointless without a mobilised party base.

Simon Leeds, Nicholls

Informal shame

Your reporter Ewa Kretowicz in her article ''Young doctors can try for internship'' (August 4, p3) reported a spokeswoman for ACT Health Minister Katy Gallagher as saying she didn't know how many ACT Health internships were ''up for grabs''.

Did she really say that? Without blushing? What's wrong with ''available''.

George Beaton, Greenway