Liz Forgan is right to say “the views of the staff are very important” (Guardian and Observer journalists to get vote on next editor-in-chief, 19 December). What plans are in place for a similar indicative ballot among readers? If nothing is yet planned, I’d suggest that each of the shortlisted candidates is required to write a letter to readers about how they would fulfil the role. These would then be published, anonymously, and readers invited to vote and/or comment. The Scott Trust would gather valuable feedback about how readers want the Guardian to develop; and the interview panel would be informed of readers’ priorities when making this vital appointment.
Richard Stainton
Whitstable, Kent
• Keith Flett (Letters, 23 December) suggests readers might be given a say in the choice of Alan Rusbridger’s successor. While matters of experience and competence can largely be determined by perusal of CVs, the deal-breaker questions a great many readers would like to put to candidates are: did you support the paper’s endorsement of the Lib Dems at the last election?; and would you be likely to do the same?
Root Cartwright
Radlett, Hertfordshire
• As Keith Flett helpfully suggests, voting for the position of editor of your newspaper might be more democratic if readers all had a vote, just as long as the votes were not to be allocated based upon the number of letters published in said paper by said correspondent.
Gareth Pritchard
Daventry, Northamptonshire
• A wall chart of all the runners and riders would help readers to make an informed decision.
Alex May
Manchester
