The Press Friday, May 1, 1925. Election Issues.

Press, Volume LXI, Issue 18370, 1 May 1925, Page 8

The Press Friday, May 1, 1925. Election Issues.

One of the curious reactions to Wednesday's election results has been the suggestion that a lesson has been taught the enemies of Proportional [Representation. Actually this is true. Those who object to P.R. have learnt for what petty, selfish, and politically nauseous reasons so many of its supporters support it. They have seen the "first past the post" system condemned because it permitted a result which the advocates of P.E. did not want, and, a more interesting lesson still, they have seen these advocates put their belief on record that everybody else must condemn the system for the same sordid reason. Wo are, ourselves, strongly opposed to P.E., but as our objection to it never was that it did not elect the particular candidates we might happen to be supporting in a particular campaign, we are not less vehemently opposed to it today than we were last weok. To call a system good only when it proves good for its supporters may bo the. practice of electoral reformers of a certain type, but it is not yet the general practice, and we are astonished that there should be people, cjude enough to assume that it is. The lesson of the election is simply what we said it was yesterday—that a house divided against itself shall not stand. The actual victory of Mr Archer is not profoundly important. For the Council, where the electors were, not confused, Labour polled well, in two cases very well, but the number of Labour candidates elected, was not sufficient to give it a chance of being dangerous. With six members (including the Mayor) in a Council of seventeen it is in a position, as of course it should be, to exejeise a sufficiently moderating influence to prevent partisan decisions. It is perhaps the greatest of all political delusions that a majority '■ invariably, or ofteHjignaiea a minority; but if we may suppose that this might otherwise happen, the presence of six Labour members will effectually prevent Labour interests from beiag negleoted. In general, therefore, though the Citizens should have had the Mayor, the Council is a quite . proper and ordinary one, and calls fqt no comment. But the Mayoral result excites comment because it reveals what division can do, and is .actually doing, li is not what happened this week in Christehurch that matters, but what has already happened and is going to happen <in national politics if' Labour remains the only united Party. For it will be remembered that Labonr did not even propose at first to contest the Mayoralty, knowing that it could not win in a elear campaign, and not daring to hope that its opponents would quarrel among themselves. But it will take a few more chances,in the future—and ; win again unless all opposed to its J extreme doctrines realise that they must [close their ranks.

But that brings us to the question raised by a correspondent in this issue. We are asked why, if we felt sure that Mr Beanland had a legitimate grievance, wo did not say so before the election, and especially why we attribute blame to him for going to the poll.■■'' Our reply is that Mr Beanland should not-have gone to the poll unless he felt sure that he could win, and it is difficult to believe that he could have felt that. It is certain that very few, even among his supporters, thought he could win, so that his candidature was perilously like an effort to get even with the Citizens' at the qxponse of the public. And our answer to the question why we did not speak sooner is, of that it would ha,ye been useless to speak. No one but the official candidate of the Citizens' Association' could' have defeated Mr Archer, and since Mr Beanland was determined to remain in the contest, the only effect of saying last week what we said this week would have been to increase Mr Archer's majority. We made it quite plain, however, that if the candidates could not settle the dispute themselves the public should settle it for them, and we said very definitely—what was true, and would have saved tho situation if it had been attended to—that a vote for Mr Beanland was a vote for Labour, and that if the citizens did not unite in support of the official candidate of the Anti-Labour Party, Mr Archer would be elected. Mr Archer was elected, not because wo did not speak, but because the public, possibly including our correspondent, did not listen.