ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

Hauraki Plains Gazette, Volume XXXIX, Issue 5359, 3 December 1928, Page 3

ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

DEFECTS EXEMPLIFIED. thirty-seven MINORITY M’S.P. Strong condemnation of tile present electoral systqm was expressed by Mr P. J. O’Regpn to a Wellington Evening Post representative. Ip his view the late election affords an excellent illustration both of the defects of that system and of the imperative necessity for effective; voting and proportional representation. “The outstanding fact about the election,” said Mr O’Regan, “ is that there are thirty-seven minority representatives. In other, words, nearly half the members of the new House of Representatives have been elected by minorities. We are told that the majority must rule, but the pla«> truth remains that, as things are, the result of an election depends not on how the pepple vote, but o,n ho" their votes are split.— OUTSTANDING MEN fail. “I am not dealing with the question in any party spirit, but it is a notorious fact that when the par.ty which has just suffered defeat c.ame mtc power in 1912 it pledged itself to do two .things—to repeal the Second Ballot Act and, to give us something m place of it. Having made a,n end of the Second Ballot Act, it found no difficulty in stopping at that and standing by the status quo. To-day it> may wejll be said, ‘Verily, they have their reward.’ It is safe tcj say that under the proportional system outstanding men such as Messrs. Rolleston and -McLeod would never have lost their seats.

“The present system is wrong in every way. Take, for example, the huge wastage of vqtes.' We Uke to see, the candidate we support elected by a huge majority. It remains a fact, nevertheless, that all votes in excess of a bare majority are simply wasted!. Under the proportional systepi all votes in excess of ,the electoral quota are transferred to other candidates, and they are not transferred anyhow, but in strict accordance with the directions given by the; vc;ter himself when he numbers the names on his ballot-paper. “Bec.ause; of his power to transfe. his vote the elector would ensure its effectiveness, for. the reasojn that he has thereby the power to direct how •his vote is to be used' if the candidate of his first choice dees not require it. Thus the proportional system, by giving the voter a choice} of candidates, effectively secures and preserves individual freedom. A Parliament elected under such a system will be really representative and authoritative. ABSURDITY TN CENTRES. “The absurdity of the single-mem-ber elejctqrate is well illustrated' in the case of the larger centres of population, where the electoral boundaries are necessarily arbitrary, and inconstant. Surely it is ridiculous to see a city like Wellington, though one constituency for municipal purposes, divided! into five fqr Parliamentary elections ? Under the; proportional system New Zeialand would be divided, say, into fifteen European constituences, and their boundaries would be rivejrs and mountain ranges, and other natural features. There would be no need for, periodical alterations in boundaries because movements in population equid be adjhstejd by ordaining here a five-member constituency, there a four-member, and so on. “Moreover, under the proportional system, for the; first time, we would really have secured the secrecy of the ballot. In scattered country electorates—Motueka Westland, for example—there were in the late election as many as a hundred polling places, in some of which not more than a dozen votes were recorded. There can be no secrecy of the ballot at those, small booths. We might just as well revert to open voting. The proportional system requires all the bailed papers to be counted at one central polling booth. NOT PREFERENTIAL VOTING.

■‘Needless to say, we who advocate the proportional system cannot accept as a r.ejmedy the device called, prefei* ential voting "in the real sense in single-member constituencies. Obviously there c,an not be preferential vexing in the, real sense in singlemember constituencies. The word preference implies the power to choose, and how can there be preference where the; voter is compelled to number the names on ballotpaper w'hejn there are three candidates to twq of whom he is opposed. In Wellington East, for example, Mr Forsyth’s, supporters would be obliged to write the numbers 2 or 3 opposite the name of Mr Semple p while Mr Semple’s supporters would have to number Mr Forsyth’s name! Certainly, in a very distorted sense of the language, the systejm wojuld ensure majority representation, but it would make minority representation impossible. “Yes, proportional representation will ensure that the; majority of the voters will have th e majority of representatives, but it will ensure; with equal exactitude the representative of minorities in accordance with their numerical strength. “Preferential voting is no new sugr gestion in this country. The Absolute Majority Bill was introduced thirty years ago by the late Dr. McNab, but subsequently Dr. McNab abandoned the* idea and became a whole-hearted adJvoc.ate of proportional representation. NOT TOO COMPLICATED. “One point in conclusion: Some cf bur ill-informed critics condemn the proportional system as being too complicated for the average voter. Well, preferential voting in single-member constituencies means exactly the same method of marking the ballqtpapejr. If the voters can mark three preferences—and' unquestionably they c,an —they can be relied on to mark five or six.

“In view c>f the manner in which the great cause of electoral reform has been betrayed in this country, it is to be hopqd that the new House will face the problem and settle it fence and for all in the only way it .-can be settled*”