ELECTION BY QUOTAS

Dominion, Volume 7, Issue 2208, 22 July 1914, Page 4

ELECTION BY QUOTAS

• NO PARTY FAVOURED.' ...In, tlio Legislative Council yesterday ■afternoon thg. Hon,,H. D.i.lieil, during tlio; debate on the second reading of the Legislativo Council 'Bill, iiiado refcroncs to the argument used, tliat,- under a pro. pdrtioual system of. representation tilio Labour ticket would voto solid, lvherens ■the other parties wodld/iiot, and Labour would havo an ad/Piitage; - He said that an''argument often- heard' was that because Labour would in general vote its ticket solid as .dictated)- and ::tlierqfore Gleet its first three with'ccrfcainfcyj while .other parties would not follow' the order or liamos, there would' consequently be many different persona first in 'prefercnco on tlio lists of the .other two parties, and .therefore proportional'representation would 1 .unduly- favour Labour. Ho confuted :that< statement', by tile following illustration : Approximately there were 600,000 electors on .the rolls at the ejection l of 1911, say, 320,1)00 Tor the North Island and 280,030'f0r thg South Island; that was 160,000 for.each;of the proposed electorates 'in'.the North Island, and 140,000 for each in the South. Confining the illustration to one electorate in tlio North. Island, and'assummg ■■ that. 90. .per. cent.-.of- the . eleotors voted, thoro! would be' 144,000 "voters, by , whom eleven .'members were to be elected. Tlio quota was 12,001, gained •by dividing the total number of votes by one, more than the total number of members t<> he elected, and adding one. Setting aside voting on sido issues, he assumed, for purpose of', the illustration, the existence of three: parties.—L., M., and JR., —and that each party issued a tickot requesting its ■ supporters' to vote according to.the>list. Each would issue .a list of oleven nan.es, say Ll, L2,L 3, Ml, M2,M 3, 111, I{2, I{3, otc. Assuming the voters :in an electorate to! bo .divided L-38,000;' M 62,000, It 44,000, and that tho voters of each party voted as they' were- asked. On tho first.-count LI would have 38,000, .Ml 62,000, and E1'44,000.- Each had very much more than the. quota, and all were'elected; 12,001 votes were set aside from each packet, and never used /again. Oil the • second count L 2 had 25,999 votes, M 2 had 49,999 votes, and! R2 had 31,999 votes. All were'olected, and; 12,001 votes removed from each packet. There remained five members still to bo elected. On tho third count L 3 had 13,998 votes,- M 3 lmd 37,998, and H3 had 19,9.98. Three members were again elected. There remained two members to'be elected, and oil the fourth count M 4 ]iad votes, L 4 had 1997 votes,.and 114 had 7997..v0te5.: M 4 was elected, and his - surplus went to M 5, who also had ,a quota, and was elected. The result was then: M five members, L three members, and .It threo members. • However any , party voted it lost a full quota for every member elected from it, and - thereforo by no possible ■ procoss could a party elect more members than the fraction represented by dividing its total voters .by the quota. If a -party was 100,000 strong, and voted- solidly, and the quota was 20,000, that party would elect fivo members, but'it. could not elect ono more, because, when those fivo were I elected, 'tlie whole, 100,000 papers of tho party had' been tornpved from the count, which' then proceeded upon the 'papers of the other.parties. . .An lion, member: lb is all very nice on paper. ■ : .