I read with concern last week’s article Winning design came last in the public vote (Epsom Guardian, July 11). 

What has happened to universal suffrage in Epsom and Ewell?

To choose a design that gained so few votes seems extremely foolhardy – and completely against Emily Davison’s belief in the justice of equal rights for men and women which led her to campaign for universal suffrage.  Why should the views of a four-person panel over-ride the clearly expressed preference of the public?

If the public vote was a piece of market research done for a business, they would never select the design that the ‘voters’ put last.  It would not make sense to produce a product that so few people wanted.  

If one wanted to use emotive language you could say the small judging panel had chosen the design the people of the borough hated!  There may be reasons why the panel might not want to choose the top design – but why not choose one of the top three?  These scored  119, 116 and 96 votes altogether so a  large majority of the voting public liked one of them. 

Why are we left with the undemocratic decision of a gang of four:  2 artists, Councillor Woodbridge and a ‘representative of UCA Epsom’?  

I can appreciate the interesting concept behind Mary Branson’s concrete ellipse, however other artists also made good written cases for their designs – I read them all before I voted.   Mary Branson is well qualified, experienced and may be well connected.   Perhaps the panel saw her as the safe option because of her experience.  However, her design will only make real sense for a few minutes a year – i.e. at sunset on 8 June,  And then only if you are sat on the proposed bench, at the right time, and know the thinking behind the concrete ellipse. 

Why can’t we have a memorial that more clearly reflects Emily Davison’s life, ideals and death? 

Why can’t we have a memorial that the millions of people passing the roundabout each year can appreciate each day?  

Why can’t we have a permanent memorial that much more clearly identifies with Emily Davison?  One which will more obviously inspire women to continue to strive for equality and respect for all?  Several of the proposed designs did do these things, but Mary Branson’s design does not.

I continue to question the numbers the council has released: they do not add up – we are told 376 votes were cast but adding up the votes for each design gives a total of more than 450!  Did some people vote for more than one design?  If so, perhaps their vote should have been regarded as a spoilt paper (as per general elections).  Alternatively, if someone voted for two it would be fair to count it as half a vote for each.

Today I visited the Ebbisham Centre, in Epsom, and saw the display in the foyer about the chosen design.  The black voting box is there again – this time for pledges from the public of money towards the cost of the chosen design.  

I fear the council’s panel have chosen exactly the wrong design - do they really expect to be overwhelmed with pledges when the design selected was favoured by less than 1 in 20 of the voting public?  So still too many questions remain about this whole process.   I fear the council is trying to get us to ‘put our money is on the wrong horse’.   (After all, the council is not spending any of its money on it.)   

Adele Rowe, via email