Untitled

Hokitika Guardian, 30 June 1927, Page 2

It was very palpable following the Municipal Elections of April last, from the large number of informal ballot Papers, that the revised system of voting had been very confusing to the electors. Subsequent discussion on tlie position by many Councils, and the opinions of several leading returning officers, the views expressed were in favor oi the former system of voting. The complaints ranged from Auckland to the Bluff and the system generally was considered very unsatisfactory. According to a published statement there were iBTI informal votes in the Auckland City polling, and the returning officer attributed the majority to the new system of voting. I'hom various other quarters in different parts of the Domin on the new style was condemned, and now the Auckland City Council proposes to ask the. Government to amend the existing legislation by reverting to the old system under which it was optional either to strike out names or place crosses against the name sof candidates. We do not know that this is going to be a cure, because the two methods of voting proposed are contradictory in themselves. That is. l,v striking out a name the voter indicates a negative that particular candidate or proposal is not wanted; by .making a cross the voter indicates a positive—a vote is counted for the candidate or proposal. This was in vogue previously and the alternative system was confusing to many. Ihen. as now there were numerous informal votes. What appears to have contributed to the number on this occasion was the plethora of candidates in several instances. The ballot paper with some score of candidates named must have been very confusing to many electors in the cities, for the voters would have but a faint knowledge of the personality of the would-be councillors, anil many informalities must have crept in on that account. Whatever system of voting is selected, it is for the electors to master it. Tn these days of more advanced education it should not he difficult to follow the printed instructions on each billot paper as to the method of exercising the vote. The more informal votes there are it would appear wo are to discount the intelligence of

le average voter who is not able-to 1 aster the import of the instructions I icr© for his direction. No doubt, 1 \ hatevor tlic system there -will be a j lercentage of informal papers—that evasion a general election when there re only two names to decide about, daily folk are too indifferent in these natters to consider tlieir obligations as seriously ns they should, and the mistakes creep in—as they will always.