VOTE-SPLITTING

Hokitika Guardian, 26 May 1928, Page 2

VOTE-SPLITTING

AUCKLAND NEWSPAPER’S COAIAIENT. AUCKLAND, May 24. Under the heading “Political Impudence” the “Star” says:— The only objection we would raise to comment of the acting leader of tho ' . United Party on the charge of votesplitting is that Air Forbes is too polite. If he had said that the charge was in the circumstances a piece of impudence he would have spoken no more than the truth. Consider Reform’s record in this matter. It abolished the second ballet, and in doing so promised to put something better in its place. That promise it has not kept. When Liberalism and Labour divided tho anti-Government > forces, and let Reform in on a minority vote, were any regrets expressed at Reform . headquarters? The air must have been full of chuckles of--delight. Further, despite its professed abhorrence of Labour, it opposed sitting Liberal members and presented seats to Mr Hoiland. Now, when a new Party has been formed for the purpose of consoii- * dating moderate anti-Reform forces, it complains about vote-splitting. The effrontery of the thing is staggering. Who but the Reform Party is responsible for an electoral system that permits vote-splitting? And why should not a new Party he formed ? It is a free country, or it used to be. Reform, of course, regards the two-Party system in which it has an indefinite leaso of office as political perfection, and works unceasingly to that end. If people should prefer three or more. Parties, and turn Reform out. Reform will have to make the best of a distressingly and degenerate world.