MAJORITY RULE.

Kaipara and Waitemata Echo, 25 February 1914, Page 2

MAJORITY RULE.

As Sir Joseph Ward pointed out, the party on the Treasury Bench, does not possess the majority of the voting strength as recorded at the .polls in December of 1911. But it cannot be forgotten that this was the verdict of Second Ballot, which was put on the Statute Book to make the majority preponderance certain. It is not right therefore, to reproach the" Reformers " for repealing Second Ballot, without putting a substitute in its place on the book. The point against them is that they have not done anything to improve matters beyond the discarding ofafailure. This, however, they may put right before the end of next session. If they have not, then they wili be responsible for a breach of promise. If they select some form of proportional representation of absolute majority voting, they will redeem their promise. The matter is too serious to be passed over. The Bethnal Green case ought to open the eyes of the public. In that byelection a remarkably small minority has been placed in the governing position at a time when there are crucial measures instinct with great even vital issues before the country. These are Home Rule, Welsh Disestablishment, Land Reform, House of Lords Reform and Manhood Suffrage, if not even Adult Suffrage. That a member with a ' minority vote on these important questions is positively unthinkable. Yet it is the case under the law of first-past-the-post. It will be said that the result is a punishment of that form of selfishness which refuses to sink private consideration in respect for the general welfare. Of course it is right that party organisation should be good. But no question of organisation can be permitted to interfere with the general good which can be catered for by an amendment in the electoral law. The excuse is plainly, not a valid defence against the criticism of the law which permits minority rule. Moreover such punishment as loss of Franchise would be

excessive,