LOCAL ELECTION REFORM.

Dominion, Volume 6, Issue 1767, 4 June 1913, Page 10

LOCAL ELECTION REFORM.

Sir,—l was interested in the report of ail address by' Mr. M'Laren. There is no doubt that the Local Election and Polls Act and tho several other Acts bearing npon tho conduct of local elections require remodelling. The suggestion that the Parliamentary roll should bo used would bp unfair to a ratepayer who had interests in two or more boroughs, whereas at present he has a vote in each. Whenever a persons name is taken off the roll it should be niade law that tho Returning Officer send a postcard to tho person affected ivhioh should be returned if not delivered within, say, seven days. I had tho experience of being disfranchised in the last city e ection though I was on tho roll previously and voted as a ratepayer. Numbers of suburban electors were surprised and disappointed in a similar way. Clause 16 of the Local Elections Act provides that "each candidate may appoint a scrutineer for cach polling booth at any election" at his own expense, of oourse. ilus is .where tho rub comes in. Tho Act should allow for an independent scnitinr eer, paid by tlio local lxxly» to behalf of the candidates. Just fancy twelve condidates each having a scrutineer, or, as in tho case of the city at last election, thirty-seven at each polling booth. This applies only to tho day of tho poll and in thp caso of a close finish there is no provision for a candidate to have a scrutineer present on the following day at a recount, or to be present when drawing lots in caso of a tie to decide who shall be declared elected. _ In fact, thero is no clause authorising a recount of votes except by order of the magistrate after a candidate has filed a petition against tho result of the election in which ho must havo sonip very serious charges to make, also deposit .£lO, and be prepared to forfeit the same and more for Court and legal expenses., In tho oity elections the Returning Officer docs not reopen the packets of. sealed votes sent in by the Deputy-Returning Officers, but depends entirely on tho accuracy of tho same as shown by a return fhoet. Theso return sheets he checks and makes up ins second and final count entirely from these. This is quite in accordance with Sections 28 and 29 of the Act. Two at least of our suburban borough returning officers read the Act differently and opened the ballot papers and recounted the same before giving tho final declaration and sealing the votes and depositing the same with tho Clerk of the Magistrate's Court. There should lie some simple legal machinery whereby a recount could be easily obtained and it scrutiny of votes mado as between two or moro candidates roost interested as provided in tho Legislative Act. Section 35D of the Local Act prohibits "any person giving to any voter on the day of polling any meat, drink, or entertainment or ticlcct for some," but it savs nothing about tho day preceding tho poll when it might bo legal to storo a supply of liquor in a room Adjoining tho hall for the use of the staff engaged at the polling booth next day. This practice must surely bo a breach of the true interpretation of the Act and calculated to influence the result and tho accuracy of the count which tho Returning" Officer at the principal booth should be able to depend upon absolutely. There are several things which require legislating against, such as running tickets, plump voting, candidates canvassing for ■ votes and making it their business to enroll electors, also the paying for hired vehicles to run voters-to the noil. Theso practices seem "infra dig" to most candidates seeking to serve tho public without any thought of personal gain or remuneration. This law has been in force for years and T would like to see representations made to the present Government with a view to reform, which would, 1 am sure, increase the public interest in local elections, nlso be the means of increasing the number of public spirited citizens to come out as candidates.—l em, etc., WILLI A M HOBBS. May 27, 1913.