The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 12th, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

Hokitika Guardian, 12 September 1923, Page 2

The Guardian (And Evening Star, with which is incorporated the West Coast Times.) WEDNESDAY, SEPT. 12th, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

Tim Prime Minister before the late session closed, brought down the Electoral Reform Bill, hut it was not proceeded with. It is doubtful if it- will bo in its present form, by the present government. It is a hybrid kind of measure. Mr Wilford has described it as a ‘-piebald" bill. Certainly the Government newspaper organs are not charmed with the bill, the principles of which have been criticised severely by some of the Ministers in other days. To describe the measure, it may be recorded that the Government lias introduced a scheme of electoral reform whereby the system of proportional icpresontation will he adopted in the four large centres of New Zealand, and flic remainder of the country will liu\e the preferential voting system in single electorates. Quito apart from the merits of the two systems it is abundantly clear, says a critic, that the whole proposal is a device on the part of the Government to oi,min their fair share of representation in the cities, where their support. is weakest, and to deprive the other parties mid shades of opinion in the rural areas of fair representation, where the Government is strongest. Ti seems incredible that a Government could lie so anxious to remain in office that it is prepared to do so even at the price of snciitieing and with-holding, democratic methods and principles. Another detrimental effect of tile (tovernineiit’s proposal will lie that in differentiating between the urban and rural areas there will be h, tendency for flic ‘‘town v. country’’ feeling to become accentuated. In the system of preferential voting in single electorates where there are more th n two eauiddats the elector, as under proportional representation, marks his first choice with the figure 1, and Lis next choice with the figure 2, and so on. If no candidate receives a majority of the votes (first choice), the lowest candidate is excluded from the poll, and his votes transferred, according to the second choices marked by lii.s supporters, to the other candidates still in the running, 'flic system accomplishes in one operation all that the second ballot does in two. But whatever ‘‘system’’ be adopted ultimately, the ‘‘outs” will blame it invariably. The “system” which will conic into vogue eventually "ill no doubt he proportional representation. Under that system of voting the preference of fhe voters is calculated scientifically, and the ultimate result will be accurate so far as figures of voting are concerned. This will be all irrespective of ‘“party” feeling, so that wo may look to it, that in the long last, such a system of voting will tend to kill party. AY he l hc-r this will be good or bad for a country in the end is one of those contingencies hard lo determine. Good party Government has had its advantages in New Zealand, just as bad party Government had its disadvantages. After all. parliaments are what the people tneniselvos create, and if by some process of elimination, only the best men arc .returned to Parliament, then whatever system achieves so great a success be they party men or not—is to be welcomed. The advocates of proportional ..'representation are very pronounced in their opinions as to the eCuracy of the system. There is only one system, they say, which can secure any approach to perfect election and representation, and that is Proportional Representation, for where it has been tried it has been found that parties and shades of opinion secure representation in Parliament in almost exact proportion to their numbers in the country. This system, they think, should be adopted throughout the country (with the retention of the country quota if demanded by a. majority of the House) without considering the effect it will have on any particular party. Justice and fairness demands its complete adoption, and any partial application of tho system to suit party ends, such as Mr Massey has proposed, should meet with the emphatic condemnation of all those anxious to secure a proper system of electoral reform. AA'e we may lie sure the matter will come forward at next session, but it is doubtful if in the present House on a strict division on convictions, the “piebald” measure could lx? carried. For the time being the presentation of the bill serves a purpose, anti out of the discussion which has been caused, will perhaps emerge a fresh measure more definite in a universal principle and not of a hybrid character such as that being discussed