THE MINORITY M.P.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2224, 23 June 1908, Page 3

THE MINORITY M.P.

THE PROS AND CONS. SOME FACTS AND SUGGESTIONS'. [Special to “Times.”] WELLINGTON, Juno 22. The intimation by tlio Premier that the Government intend, during the coming session, to pass an Absolute Majority Bill in view of tho forthcoming general election will revive interest in a problem that-has already been very much discussed in New Zealand. I have been looking through the figures for the last election, and I find that had tho provision for an absolute majority been law on tint occasion it- would have necessitated no fewer than 16 fresh- elections. At the coming general elections ,owing to the change in political ideas through tlie demise of Mr. -Seddon, tlie change in the electoral boundaries, anil the multiplicity of candidates with which we are threatened, the numberl of new elections necessary will no doubt- be increased, probably to at least 20. The 1G minoritv representatives returned at last election were, with three exceptions, all Government’supporters. The names of the minority men returned qu that occasion, together with their-majorit-ies over tlie next successful candidate, are as follows: .R. At. Houston 570, 0. H. Poole 340. F. E. Baume 971, F. Lawr.y 122, E. Al. Smith 236, C. E. Major 449, W. Svmes 143, J. T. Hogan 924. F. 4’. .Lethbridge 986, J. O'. W. Aitken 19, V. 11. P. Barber 1213, W. AY. Tanner 745, T. H. ■Dayev 565, G. Lauroneoii 4122, R. M. Rhodes 283, J. AlcLadihui 244. In some of these instances no doubt a second ballot would have'resulted in tlie return of tlie same men by grtu ter'majorities than they secured in tlie first instance. On the other band, no doubt, some of those elected in the first instance would have been defeated had -there been a second -ballot. The question is whether the probable alteration in the presonnel of the House would have been worth the great trouble and expense involved in a fresh election in these 10 constituencies. 'From a Government point of view, with the dunce of losing several Government seats and ousting only one, or at most two Opposition men, a second ballot: after the .last election would undoubtedly have been a mistake. The uuestion naturally follows: AY-liy .should tlie Government be now So coneeilnod about the enacting of such- a measure? The nuswer is no doubt partly because of •l doubt in regard to tlie attitude of organised labor, and partly because of l threatened -multiplicity of Government candidates in a number of the constituencies at the coming election. Organised libor is going to make a bid for independent representation, and the possible vote split may let in Opposition candidates. The same thing may be said in regard to other constituencies where there are numbers of Ministerialist candidates. Of course it. remains to be seen whether or not. in the event of a second billot: being t ilcen, the Government candidate would receive tlie labor vote. In some cases .the second ballot will no doubt, prove to be a two-edged ■word. In any case there are a great many arguments against it, and mo-t people who have thought out the subject admit that Mr.' McNab’s idea of preferential voting is supreme to the Prime Minister’s idea of a second ballot. In regard to several country constituencies .the effect of a second election would undoubtedly mean the disfranchisement- of a considerable number of email farmers, and putting an mere ised power into tlie hands of the masses in the towns or the main cent res of population. It would be easy for tlie latter to vote again, but many country people, especially women, would undoubtedly not go to the trouble and expense of walking riding, or driving a second time over miles of b vek block roads to vote at. another: election. Therefore, of the two schemes, if we are to have a change, the preferential voting one would be the better. The main objection urged to it is that tlie electors would not under this system cast their, votes intelligently, but t!.ii,s crilicirth barely is a poor compliment to the mental calibre of the.electors of New I Zealand, and it is urged that the I elector who could—not give an intclliI gent vote under such a pimple system

not worlliv oT the franchise. Tlicro will he considenbalo opposition i 0 tlie proposal for' a second ballot, and some doubt as to whether the Government can carry it during tlie coming session,