MAKING POLITICAL TICKETS.

Manawatu Herald, Volume XLV, Issue 2543, 15 February 1923, Page 4

MAKING POLITICAL TICKETS.

WITHOUT CONSENT OF CANDIDATES. ACTICE SHOULD BE STOPPED. In the League’s annual report this reference is made to a practice observed in connection with the Parliamentary elections. “One matter deserves mention, and that is the advertising of ‘tickets’ by organisations formed for sectional purposes. This should be prohibited by law, unless the consent of the candidate has first been obtained. This practice has undoubtedly led to much mischief this year, and resulted in many surprises; it is unfair because it tends to I throw all opponents to the organii sation advertising the ticket against the candidate named, and also places the sectional interests before those of the country as a whole.” We"'desire to further refer to this question because the time appears most opportune for its general discussion. Notice has been given to move in the House for Amendment .of the Electoral Law, and proposals in that direction are coming from many quarters throughout the Dominion. If the existing Statutes relating to elections are brought forward for revision and amendment, we trust that provision will be made to legally restrict or prohibit the practice so common on the part of particular sections of practically committing candidates, in the eyes of the public, to sectional movements they do not approve of and have never endorsed. It is but .justice to the citizen who offers himself as a candidate that he should be allowed to present his own claims and be free from the definite misrepresentation of having himself presented as endorsing what he does not at all agree with. Why should any society or group of persons be allowed to publish the statement that these —giving a list of candidates’ names —are their candidates, without first having the consent of each individual whose name is placed on such list. This is the definite question we wish to have generally considered.

It may be argued that the practice means no more than that the society or group endorses the candidature of the particular candidate. In actual fact it conveys a- great deal more than such impression to the public mind. What is read from the publication of such announcement is not merely that the society in question endorses the candidate but that the candidate stands for all that the society is seeking to obtain, which may be utterly false. If any persons, other than the candidates and his committees for him, are going to publish a candidate’s name so as to make such candidate responsible for particular tenets in the mind of the public then surely it is right to require that they shall first have tlie candidates’ consent. It may not be practicable to apply this \

rule in minor instances but in respect to the act of publishing in the Press and otherwise by political sects or organisations such regulation might justly be enforced. NOT A PARTY ISSUE.

It should be noted that this is in no respect a party question. There is sound reason why all parties, and all individual politicians, should combine to ensure justice to the candidate and to the electors in this matter. We say advisedly “the electors” because not only are candidates placed in a false position bv thus being committed without being consulted but electors are often misled as to the attitude of candidates by the publication of matter which carries with it a false inference. The practice of publishing tickets without having the consent of the persons whose names appear thereon is an evil which effects all candidates, it may be of this party today and the other to-morrow or it may injure individuals of all parties at the same time.

NO RESTRICTION OF CRITICISM Some persons may reason that no attempt at regulation in this matter would restrict the privilege of criticism which persons and organisations now possess. It is far from our desire to limit legitimate criticism in any way.

We have to remember, however, that the Electoral law at present recognises the principle that representations respecting a candidate shall be just and fair in that the publication of false statements in certain instances are prohibited. Wjhat we seek to have considered is whether this principle ought not to be extended so as to prohibit the publication of not only actual misleading statements about a candidate calculated to deceive the electors, bald lists of names which actually convey an erroneous impression to the public mind. It surely is not beyond the powers of Parliament to construct such legislation as —whilst adequately protecting legitimate criticism —will do justice to all candidates by preventing them from being wrongly represented and also protect the electors from being misled. (Contributed by the N.Z. Welfare League.)