HUMORS OF THE SECOND BALLOT.

Gisborne Times, Volume XXVI, Issue 2362, 1 December 1908, Page 7

HUMORS OF THE SECOND BALLOT.

SOME UNLOOKED-FOR RESULTS

PARLIAMENTARY SIDE-LIGHTS

To pressmen, whoso duties take, them into the Parliamentary gallery the second ballot has been an inter-

esting topic since the Bill iflis first Hunched (remarks a writer in the "Wellington “Post”)- At one time when the indignation over the “gag” clause was at its height the measure was the subject of much journalistic “speculation,” and its final stages in the Council were followed with unusual interest. Looking hack now over the results, the second ballot pro- , vides some humorous and interesting reflections. The defeated members who. sat in the last Parliament are E. G. Allen, Barber, Barclay, Chappie, Elatman, A L. D. Eraser, Gray, Hornsby, Izard, Kidd, Major, M'Nab, Stevens, Svines, Tanner, and Wood. * These members, were all on the Government side of the House, and, with the exception of Dr Chappie and Mr -Tanner (who voted against the Bill), and the Hon. R. M'Nab, Stevens, and Symes (who dad not . vote), every one of them supported the second reading of the Second .Ballot pill. They little imagined what

th-. result would be. Of course a few disappeared in the first ballot. •Some of the speeches made by members in support of the .Bill when it was before the House are sad reading to-day. , , .. Mr Tanner made the following quotation from tho Spocb.vtoi, and said he agreed with every word of it: “Tho second ballot, which is demanded in some quarters, would only intensify tho real vice of tho existing system. As things are, a -minority may occasionally affect tho result of an election. If it cannot -return the candidate it prefers, it can sometimes keep -out a candidate whom it specially dislikes.” Ho declared that ho would do everything in his power to oppose the Bill. Dr Chappie: The evidence that has accumulated within recent years in favor of preferential voting is very encouraging to those who are in favor of that fair-reaching reform. I think that, whilst tho second ballot might be justified, for reasons I have stated the preferential-voting system is infinitely superior, having -al-1 tho advantages of the second ballot without any of its disadvantages, at tlio same time being easy of -use and promising that reform which the -promoters of the second ballot- themselves desire. Mr Izard, who favored the absolute majority (but who failed to get into the second baUot), supported the Bill as “a step in th© direction of electoral reform.” Mr Barclay’s speech is amusing reading at this stage. “I can understand,” he said, “the very strong opposition which the -honorable gentlemen sitting opposite show to this Bill. I can understand the strength of tlieir criticism -and, I might almost say, the violence of their indig 7 nation. If honorable members will look at the lists that >are periodically published in tlie ' newspapers, they cannot fail to have noted that all over the country people are tumbling over each other to become Ministerial candidates. There does not seem to be such la -rush for the hand-wagon, in tho case of gentlemen on the other side, and when there is representation of Opposition views it is generally only ope man who is standing in that interest. That, of co-urse, is right from these gentlemen’s point of view, and it is good tactics indeed. Now, wo have had -already some examples of how a state of affairs of that kind .results. I elo not wish to allude to particular cases to may extent more than is necessary, but I would put it to any reasonable n. ai whether wo did not. find in the ease of one election —a bv-election, I think it was —that a gentleman was -returned on the Opposition side solely, wholly, and entirely owing to the fact that- there v*er© two candidates standing in the Liberal interest I refer to the ease of New Plymouth. Very nearly -a similar case occurred 'lately at another by-election, only it happened that the Government party was so strong in the electorate that even with two Government candidates standing they were able,.both of them, to poll more votes than did the gentleman who -represented the Opposition interest. But it was a case of touch and go, and tlie result in the Tuapoka election might have been that a member representing only one-third of the political opinion of the district —Mis returned a s the member -representing that constituency, and taking his place on the floor of this House as the representative of tlie people of Tuapeka as a whole.” Mr Barclay’s references to Tuapeka, in tho jigjlit of whit has since happened, arc amusing. It should -be stated, however, that he was careful to explain that he did not regard the Bill with -particular affection, but he was “willing to give tlie system a trial.”