ELECTORAL REFORM

Dominion, Volume 12, Issue 254, 22 July 1919, Page 6

ELECTORAL REFORM

Sir,-It is gratifying to find Mr. H. I*. von Ilaast, whose word must carry considerable weight with those in authority. giving some serious thought to the question of electoral reform. Like the rest of us, he is living and learning. A few: years ago he and Ins lfiends were applauding a proposal to institute projwrtional representation in tro-memher constituencies; but he, at. any rate, knows better than that now. His method of applying the alternative vote, however, betrays a somewhat hazy acquaintance with the first principles of democratic representation. It would givo the same result as the second ballot, at smaller cost, and with less delay, and would not even ensure the representation of majorities, which your correspondent apparently regards as a sine qua non of all elections.

Let us, for the purpose of demontration, imagine an eicction in which there are three candidates—Smith, Jones, and Robinson—and 100 voters. On the first count there are 41 votes for Smith, 31 for Jones, and 28 for Robinson. Of Smith's alternative votes 11 are given to Jones and 30 to Robinson; of Jones's, '7 to Smith and 24 to Robiuson, and of Robinson's, S to Smith and 20 to Jones. When it comes to a count under Mr. von Haast's method, Robinson, having the fewest first preferences, is struck off the list, and his alternative votes are distributed, according to the choice of his supporters, between the other two candidates. This gives Smith at total of 40 and Jones a total ol' 51, ami the latter is declared • elected. But, if Smith and Jones have the chance of winning by second preferences (alternative votes), clearly Robinson is entitled to the same opportunity. Then Jones having beaten Smith, Jones must be pitted against Robinson. Here it is found that of Smith's alternative votes 11 are cast for Jones,, making his total 42, and 30 for Robinson, bringing las total up to 58, and electing him by .a majority of sixteen. Here is a case 111 which Mr. von Haast's method, "based, as your correspondent claims,. on fair and democratic princiules, flagrantly flouts these principles by ruling out the candidate most acceptable to a majority of the electors.

But my main purposo in worrying you with this letter is to protest against Mr. von Haast's assumption that public opinion has not yet been adequately converted to proportional representatiou. Public iviuion has „ ft " op " lwrtimity K 1 express itself on the question, but Party leaders are now committed to and if there is any sincerity in 1 professions, his reform will reach the Book during the life of the next Parinmont. If the party leaders fail in this aspect other party loaders.will bo found to put ail end to the present haphazard system of election. Bow unjust and ineffective this system really is nmy be illustrated by ono or two examples of what happened five years ago. In the four North Auckland constituencies 15,850 electors voted for the Goveminent candidates and 11,09 a toi Opposition candidate, and yet not one sinelo Opposition candidate was xeiumeq. The

Government candidates with fewer than three-fifths of • the votes got the whole of the representation. In the four East Coast constituencies —Bay of Plenty, Gibborne, Ilawke's Bay, and Napier—the Opposition, with 17,GG7 votes against 13,198, secured the whole of the seats, over 10 per cent, of the electors obtaining uo representation at all. In the Wellington and Taranaki districts, comprising -twenty constituencies, G4.90G votes were cast for Government candidates and 05,910 for Opposition candidates, which should have divided tha representation as evenly «s possible, but as a matter of fact, fourteen Government candidates were returned, and only six Opposition. In the Canterbury, Nelson, and West Coast districts, also comprising twenty constituencies, 78,014 votes were cast for Oppositon candidates and 52,355 for Government candidates, which, under any equitable system of election, would have given the parties twelvo and eight reprc sentatives respectively; but the result under the system in vogue, .was the return of sixteen Opposition supporters and only four Government supporters. One injustice balancing another to a great extent throughout the country, the ultimate result was no worse than 243,476 'Government supporters returning thirtynine members, while 272,431 Opposition supporters returned thirty-seven members. But it is poor consolation to the misrepresented districts I have mentioned, and to others in a similar plight, to know that in the . end the misrepresentation of other districts set the balance approximate right. .... It is this sort of thing-tho inevitable misrepresentation of great bodies o£ electors—that is mainly responsible for the bitterness that inters into our political contests. No elector imbued with the sporting instinct of our race, desiring only a fair field and seeking no favour, would complain of being beaten under a system of proportional represents tion that was just and infallible in its operation; but every elector who understands th© position naturally resents bcins cheated out of his rights by a system which at the election of 1914 denied representation of any kind to 226,730 of the 515,907' electors who recorded their votes, and allowed 74,622 more only to swell the majorities of candidates whe would have been returned without tlieil assistance—l am, etc^ Wellington, July 17.