PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Press, Volume LVII, Issue 17128, 25 April 1921, Page 8

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

TO THE EDITOR OT "TUB PBKSS." Sir, —In your leading article on Saturday the following appears: "We do know that it was not to P.R. that any single councillor elected in 1917 owed his success. The sixteen leading candidates on the first count—the candidates who, under the old system, would hare been elected forthwith—actually were the sixteen finally elected." The above argument has been variously stated by opponents of P.R. on the City Council, but never quite so clearly and definitely as in your leading article. Had you, instead of adopting an objection which lias been more than once given the matter five minutes' consideration, you would have realised that the "first count" was a P.R. count, and not as "Under the old system," and that the 16 candidates who were elected would not have been elected under the "old system" of "first past the post." In regard to my _ last point, the strength of the parties was shown by the aggregate of first preference votes recorded, for the candidates of the respective party ticketß," the following being the figures:— Number of voters. Citizens' Association ... 9791 Labour Party 4792 Independents ... ... 2094

Now, if the'election had been "under the old system," with the ward divisions abolished as tliey were in 1917, the Citizens' Association and the Labour Party would each have nominated 16 candidates, and each elector could have ■ exercised 16 votes. The result would have been that every one of the ed 97&1 votes,"or thereabouts, whereas the Labour candidates would each have received about 4792 votes, and the Independents would probably have polled not more than 2094 votes. The result would-; have been that the Citizens' Association being in the majority would have received all the representation, and the Labour representatives and the Independents who were elected in 1917 under P.R. would not have been elected under the "old system." In regard to the other point, if the sixteen leading candidates on the first count had "been elected forthwith," that would have been a P.R. election, because each elector would have exercised only one vote and one preference, instead of the more perfect method, of exercising a "single transferable vote." That a perfect' system of P.R. confirmed the results which would have been obtained by another and less l perfect system of P.R., is not an argument in favour of reverting to the "old system," but could only be an argument in favour of adopting a simpler and more rough and ready system of P.R. The reason why the results obtained by the first P.R. count were confirmed by the subsequent P.R. counts was because the candidates on each ticket whp were the most popular as first preferences were, also, the most popular as second and third preferences. For instance, most of Mr D. G. Sullivan's surplus votes went to Messrs Howard, Herbert, and Hunter, while most of Mr A. S. Taylor's surplus went to Messrs Williams, Nicholls, and.McKellar, who were unelected at that count. Suppose, on the other hand, that those who supported Mr Beanland as first preference had indicated as second preference Messrs Longton, Jenkins, and ■Reynolds, these gentlemen would probably have been elected when his surplus was transferred, instead of three others of the same party. That the supporters of the "Citizens'" ticket confirmed and strengthened with their subsequent preferences, the decision indicated bv their first preferences was exactly, what one would expect. Had the decision of the Citizens' supporters been otherwise, P.R. would have given effect to the decision,_ whatever it was. Tlie electors simply indicate their order of preferences, and the svstem gives effect to the declared will of the electors with scientific accuracy._ If the Tasmanian or Gregory fractional method of P.R. adopted by the Reform Government for local elections and for the Legislative Council Act errs at all, it errs in heing too minutely exact by providing for almost every conceivable contingency. The method adopted in Lord Cniirtnev's Municipal Representation Bill, which passed the House of Lords in 1910, was much simpler, and has. wherever it has been tested, produced the same practical Tesults as the more mathematically exact system. Sir Francis Bell, however, who was responsible for both.Acts_ of Parliament, would not he content with anything less than the most perfect system that has yet been devised.—Yours, etc., J. McCOMBS. [We refer to this letter in our editorial columns.—Ed. "The Press."]