ELECTORAL REFORM

Hokitika Guardian, 2 September 1930, Page 8

ELECTORAL REFORM

VALUE OF A VOTE. fy HAPHAfeAIU) POLITICS. (S. Saunders). When we have citizens of the high standing of Air fed win .Salinond, one of Wellington’s prominent captains of industry, and Mr C. A. Wilkinson, a gentleman who is not in Parliament merely for entertainment, demanding a revision of tbe electoral system of this country, surely it is time for other progressive people to be seriously considering the question of broader representations. So fhr Mr Salihohd find Mr Wilkinson seem to have pressed their aspirations in this direction no further than the scope of the New Zealand political Association, which receives modest contributions from its subscribers to be employed in an effort to reduce the contending parties, in the House of Representativs to two. It was stated at the recent ahhiinf meeting of this body that it liad enrolled 1250 ihembers in Wellington during the previous twelve months and that others wiefe being enrolled in otlir. centres. This, of cohfse, was encouraging to the prdmdtP'rs Of the AfcTociation as far as it Went; but it has to be remeihbfefed that at the genbi-al electfori held less than two years ago the rolls bore the names of 844,638 electors and that df these ho fewer than 743,691 actually recorde dtheir votes at the polls. There obviously was a vast difference between 844,638 registered electors and 1250 subscribers to a voluntary fund which has not yet moved any considerable section of the community to activity. One does not wish to disparage the admirable work being done by the New Zealand Political Association, which in the long run should do much to awaken the public to the need for electoral reform.

To realise the need for a radical change in the present electoral system, it as necessary only to glance at the returns in the four principal cities at the last generhl election, that of T 928. In Auckland City there were nine seats, and each of these was contested by Reform, Uhitdd and Labour candidates. With 24,796 votes Reform secured one seat; with 41,120 votes United secured .five 'seats, and with 37,523 votes Labour secured ..three seats. Had tha nine etecfdrfites been grouped as one constituency under the proportional reptoseritS’tibii system Reform would have secured two x seats, with a siirplus of 1812 votes; TTfutetf three seats with a surplus of 5641 votes and Labour three seats with a surplus of 3004 votes. This would have left a total surplus of 10,496 votes, and United having 5641 of this, number might be eicpbeted to secure the nnteth seat. This would' mean that w/tile 54,580 votes were totally 'inoperative in the Auckland City constituencies at the last general election, not a smgle vote would have beeen necessarily inoperative in this area under, the system °f proportional representation. The cases of the other metropolitan areas /in these respects at the last general election were no less embarrassing than were those of the Auckland area. In the Wellington district of six constituencies Reform with 24;796 votes secured only one seat and United with 13,138 votes, only one seat while Labour, with 34,216 votes, substantially a smaller number than that polled by the other two parties, Reform and United, together, secured four seats, or two thirds of the representation for less than one half of the votes. In the Christchurch area, consisting like Wellington of six constituencies, Reform with 16,805 votes secured twtt seats, United witli 22,378 votes no seats, and Labour with 28,-. 376 votes four seats. The Dunedin area, with only four constituencies, presented a less anomalous state of affairs. Reform with 9926 votes secured one seat, United with 10,423 votes one seat; Labour with 15,512 totes one seat, and Independent with 6022 votes one seat. The fact that 6022 votes were sufficient to return an Independent candidate may be overlooked in view df the fact that this paricular candidate happened to be no lest* a notoriety than the Speaker of the House of Representatives. Before concluding the recital of these plain facts it may not be remiss to mention that these are no new blots upon the Dominion’s electoral system. At the general election of 1919 the first at which the three parties definitely took the field in opposition to one another, Reform with 206,461 votes secured forty-four European seats, while Liberal with 196,337 secured only twent-two seats, and Labour with 127, 042 votes only eight seats. In 1925 again, Reform with 317, 584 votes secured fifty-two seats; Liberal with 164,412 votes eleven seats and Labour wftli 184,616 votes twelve seats. Independent members, two in 1919 and one in 1925

are not taken into account. Surely the figures as a whole display the flagrant fallacy of the system of election we call equitable parliamentary representation in this country. The New Zealand Political Association very well might consider the propriety of extending its activities to a Wider field arid a broader community.