PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XXXVIII, Issue 1641, 23 November 1916, Page 4

PARLIAMENT AND PEOPLE.

PROPOSED NEAT SYSTEM TO REPLACE PARTY GOVERNMENT. EVERY ELECTOR IN THE HOUSE. (By Thus. K. Roydhouse). [Continued from Tuesday’s issue.] In my previous comments I dealt with the present disabilities of Party Government, and outlined a new system. Further, I undertook, in connection with this system, to introduce the elector into the House, have him there at every division, and have him voting, maintaining the principle of One Vote One Value, which so far has been a mere form of words. It now becomes my duty to demonstrate how this can be done. ELECTORS THE RULING FACTOR. Under a truly democratic form of Government the electors should be. the controlling factor. To that I can almost catch the chorus of “Hear, hear.” W oil, we are supposed to have a Democratic form of Government, yet (he situation is riiled, not by the electors, THE ELECTOR IN THE HOUSE. but by little coteries in the shape of executives of parties. These coteries run the Party Ala chines. They tell the electors what to do. That is the cart-before-the-horse system which now prevails. The executives are made up of Parliamentary representatives, persons who hope to become Parliamentary representatives, and others who look to gain some benefit from association with those just mentioned. These are the controlling factors, prior to the general elections. After the elections the parliamentary representatives do as they please. However, in my (irst article 1 took the elected members under the proposed new plain into the House, and caused them to elect, not only the Speaker, but the Premier, and (one by one, which is important) all the members of the Cabinet. Now for the elector in the House, -THE TRUE WEIGHT OF DIVI-

SIGNS. Under the existing system the exact strength of the people is not measured in Parliamentary divisions. Electorates vote; not electors. That is not necessarily the same thing. I propose to have electors considered and counted in every division, and the division to be decided, not by the number of members voting, but by the number of voters whose baliols they represent. This naturally calls for some explanation. No new departure of a radical character can be completely understood by presenting a mere skeleton of the subject. It is necessary to clothe it with Hosh to some extent, in order to alford an adequate conception of possibilities. Therefore let vis get back to the trim base.

Parliament is supposed to give effect to the people’s will, as expressed by the people’s voles. The supposition, however, is misleading, seeing that it represents sections. It gives effect to a party’s will. No-

thing more. In parliamentary divisions territories, instead of flesh and blood, are counted. A DOUBLE COUNT. Let ns consider a division. Under the new system, as now proposed, there would be a double count. First there would be a count of members in the ordinary way; but the division would not be decided by that. The next step would Into count up the number of electors who had voted (at the elections) for Ihe members on each side. The Ayes might have a majority (of members) of one, but when the votes of electors were totted up it would perhaps be found that the Noes represented more than the Ayes. Thai second count would be the determining factor, and properly so, too; for it would demonstrate the .allocation of the weight of the people in the division. The real majority (of the people, not of mem hers) would prevail, and that, I fake it, is the very essence of democratic principle. AN ILLUSTRATION.

It is perhaps necessary to illustrate. Lei us imagine a division list of 23 members. Most divisions are mueh larger, but this will snt:fiee for the present purpose. The result, upon the tellers counting the members ranged on the respective sides, is, say Ayes, 12; Xoes 11, as follows; — Air Brown Air Smit h „ Black „ Robinson „ White „ Jones „ Green „ Jenkins „ Grey „ Smyth „ Drab „ Tompkins „ Russett „ Johnson ~ Moss „ Dabbs „ Olive ~ Thomson „ Stone ~ Dodge „ Tango „ Podge „ Dango „ ’ Jt will be seen that, by the present method of counting, the Ayes have ib But that is by territories voting —mountain, paddock, and stream. That kind of voting was supposed to have been abolished long ago, in favour of voting by human beings alone. Let us see if an examrantmii of the election returns would make any •difference. Let us vwttt the people repre-

sented in that division. Let the elector have his due weight in the House. Here is the list showing how many votes each member received at the ballot-box: — Members. Elect’s. Members. Elect’s. Mr Brown 1850 Mr Smith 1742 „ Black 1045 „ Robinson 2178 „ While 1921 „ Jones 145(5 „ Breen 1370 „ Jenkins 1895 „ Grey 1811 „ Smyth 1387 ~ Drab 1329 „ Tompkins 1(54(5 ~ Russet 173(5 „ Johnson 2500 „ Moss 2017 Dabbs 1914 ~ Olive 1400 „ Thomson 2300 „ Stone 1593 „ Dodge 1780 Tango 1802 „ Podge 1847 „ Dango 1384 Ayes 19,990. Noes 20,051. The Noes have it. In the second count wo have the people’s will prevailing. It is the popular delusion that it docs prevail now, but a careful study of these two division lists may create a different impression. A POLITICAL SQUAWK.

Just here I note a squawk from one of the political groundlings. “Bless my soul!” he is ejaculating; “why the man does not take into account all the people on the rolls in the different electorates. He only counts those who voted; aren’t the others going to have any say?" No; they arc not. How call they? Why should they? Parliament is only to express the people's will; how can it express the will of those, who did not set out at the ballot-box what their will was? Moreover, it is now being recognised everywhere that if a vote is worth having if is worth recording; Those who do not wish to express their political will do not exercise the framdii.se. Therefore they do not exist, so far as Parliament is concerned, and can have no just cause of complaint. Another can be imagined as arising and protesting that as some electorates are larger than others it is too much to expect the smaller ones to poll as many votes, and therefore those electorates would be at a disadvantage in Parliamentary divisions if the new system were in force. If electorates were in the habit of voting the full strength of the roll, instead of about (5(5 per cent., there might be something further to discuss. but even then not much; for if electors are not in one electorate thev are in another.

All persons holding views which, would be represented by the Noes in the division under notice had similar opportunities of voting in erne electorate or another; and the same may, of course, be said of the Ayes. Those who did not vote had only themselves to blame. To say that in divisions in Parliament non-voters at the ballot-box should prevail over the voters at the ballot-box is 100 alisured, as most, will admit; yet that is actually what; takes place now, seeing that only electorates (including non-voters as well as voters) are now counted on division.

Turn to that illustration again, and study it. THE SYSTEM SOIMARTSKD. In conclusion, I Would summarise the proposed new system as follows :

Abolition of Parties, by making' it, an offence, punishable by heavy tine, for any person or paper to allude to any other person, group of persons, or paper, or papers, by n Parliaineniary parly title. That is, there would be no “Labour,” “Reform,” “Liberal,” “Red Fed," or any other political party title.

Men standing for Parliament would have to stand alone, and be elected on their merits. Now they are elected irrespective of merit, merely on the Party brand. This would mean in Parliament a bigger proportion of men, and a largely diminished proportion of automatons. When they came to elect the Ministry they would be better qualified for the work than any parliament up to the present.

The Directorate of New Zealand —for that is what a Ministry really amounts to —would then be selected from the whole of the material availalde instead of from half, and that material in the mass would bo better, seeing that it was elected to the House on individual qualifications, and not because it came forth under a certain political banner. The Ministry being elected would bring forward business, and the House would accept and reject as it though! (it. That is, (he people would, as just shown. Electors would take charge on every division. Aboli/lon of parties would not mean abolition of crilicism or o:f opposition. There would be jiiuplc, but there would not he structural permanent opposition— opposition merely in the hope that it would do the Opposition some party and personal good. The Government would not quit

if Bill were rejected or drastically amended; Ministers would go on with their work, and members generally would go on with theirs, accepting what they approved, amending, and throwing out; much as any large private business body would conduct its business at Directors’ meetings.

The country would rarely be thrust into the turmoil and expense of an extraordinary General Election. Occasionally a Minister, blocked in the carrying out of a pet project, would resign, but his place could he (tiled straightway from the House. So with the Prime Minister also, it he felt it irksome to bow to the. people’s will as exercised in the divisions. With Ministries elected as mentioned, and electors making their weight felt in the House on every division, the a flairs of the country would be conducted on more reasonable lines, the expense would be very much less, and business would he carried out more expeditiously. Politics, too, would take on a better tone. CUT OFE THE LABELS. The first essential is to abolish parly titles under penalty. The reform might be impossible otherwise. (To conclude in Saturday’s issue.)