Proportional Representation.

Press, Volume LX, Issue 18222, 5 November 1924, Page 8

Proportional Representation.

The discussion which took place in the House of Representatives yesterday on a proposal by the Opposition that the "Proportional Representation" system of voting should be introduced in New Zealand made abundantly clear, what was,, indeed, not very obscure before. the fact that members have almost everything to learn about this muchadvertised absurdity. Mr Massey, possibly because lie did not wish to use severe language, told the House that P.R. was "not a perfect system." He would have been infinitely nearer to accuracy if he had said that the theory of P.R. starts from assumptions which have no basis in the faets of life and politics, that it is not even workable except through a denial of its prime assumption, and in actual practice would lead to results which would make stable and honest government impossible and would necessitate the violation of that very "popular will" which it pretends to make effective. We have over and over again presented the case in support of every one of these indictments of P.R., and although the supporters of P.R- have often enough sought to reply with masses of irrelevant arithmetic, they have never ventured to meet the substantial criticism. This is.not due merely to their ignorance of the subject, although that ignorance is great. In Great Britain there are men—in particular Mr John 11. Humphreys—who have got far beyond the infant class to which those belong who, like Mr McCombs, see nothing in the question but some elementary arithmetic; and we think we may say without any risk of contradiction that neither Mr Humphreys nor any other champion of P.R. has met the objections we have advanced when P.R. has been advocated in Great Britain. Mr Massey seems to have agreed yesterday to a suggestion by Mr Wilford that the House should be afforded an opportunity next session to vote upon the question, and there can be no objection to this. But we hope that the House will vote with some greater knowledge of the question than it has at present, and we shall take such steps as we can to help members to understand what a gross imposture P.R. really is. It is advocated in this country by the Liberals and the Eeds purely and simply because they hope that it would place the government of the country in their JDint hands. The Liberals and Reds being what they are, this will seem to most sane people :* good reason for opposing P.R-, and we do not say it is a bad reason. But it is on other and more general grounds, based not upon party considerations, but on considerations of the public interest and of reason in politics, that we oppose it as an innovation not merely unnecessary, but positively vicious. .u hi ■■—»