PUBLIC OPINION PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

New Zealand Times, Volume XLIV, Issue 10272, 6 May 1919, Page 6

PUBLIC OPINION

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION

(To the Editor “N.Z. Times.’ ) Sir, —Lmortunately, I was unable to avail mysuii ol a veiy courteous invitation to attend the last meeting ol the it citing.on Philosophical Society, on the occasion of Air jenkinson s audress on ‘•proportional Representation.” I understand, however, that tlie report appearing m your issue ol the Ist mst. gives an accurate epi.omo of tne lecturer’s arguments, and with your permission 1 would offer a lew comments thereon.

Air jenkinson appears to have missed the main objection to the nrcs.mt system ot eluc.tun, winch it is the purpose of proportional representation to remedy. Tne constitutional theory of representation is that Parliament does not merely represent a majority lor the time being, but all tne people. Representation is but the development of that simple stats of society when all the treemeu of the tribe or commune assembled in public meeting to discuss and decide matters of common concern. As society .advanced that method became too cumbrous, and hence the -representative system was devised, every iroemau being present in the common council by ms representative. Hence tho theory of the British Constitution is that every voter is represented in Parliament. Clearly, a system which permanently excludes largo and important sections of opinion from representation—and that is what_ the present system does —cannot be said to conform tq that theory, and inasmuch as the franchise implies tho right ot every ci-'izcn to representation, how can we justify a system which frequently renders the franchise nugatory ? We would decry any attempt to deprive any citizen of Iris vote, but wo are asked to approve a system which necessarily makes many votes ineffective 1 Aloreover, Air Jenkinson and those who think with him appear to assume that, the present system necessarily ensures majority rcprcsenoalion. Such, however, is not the fact._ To, ensure that result—assuming again that there are only two parties i.n iho cciuury, Which is not tlie case—not more than two candidates should compete for the representation in every electorate. Everybody knows that such a consummation is impossible, and hence nothing is more probable than that, owing to tho number of candidates, the representation in many districts must go to the minority. It is to prevent that result that tho second ballot has teen devised. Nobody was pleased with that system, however; nobody regretted the repeal of tho Second Ballot Act, 1911; and nobody hereafter will advocate its resurrection. The existing system, therefore —if, indeed, it can bo called a system—pleases nobody save tho party in office for the time being. It cannot stand discussion, and it cannot continue. Projxirtibnal representation is tho only practicable and reasonable solution so far promulgated. Mr Jenkinson was particularly unhappy in his contention that proportional representation will not necessarily secure a working majority for tho Government of the day. Had he fully considered this point he must have found that the advocates of proportional representation have always maintained that to ensure a reasonble margin between tho dominant parties tho actual number of votes polled in each constituency must bo divided by an odd number. For example in Tasmania the country is divided into six five-member constituencies', and hence the quota is found by dividing tbo valid ballots by 6. If there were sixmember constituencies, the quota would bo found by dividing by 7, and in such case one party would always have a working majority. Air Jenkinson will find if ho pursues the point that there is nothing in this particular objection which is not much more applicable to tho present system. Equally erroneous was the lecturer when he maintained that tho proportional system has not given satisfaction where it has been adopted. It has been in operation in Denmark for the election of the Second Chamber since 1855 —four years before Air Haro wrote his famous work. It was adopted for municipal elections in Belgium in 1894, and it progressed so much in public favour that since 1909 it has boon in vogue for the Parliamentary elections. It was adopted in Tasmania. in 1896, but was limited to the two city constituencies of Hobart and Launceston. Since 1907, however, it has been extended to the entire State. It is in operation in iSfluth Africa since 1909 for the election of tho Senate and Provincial Councils. It was adopted a few months back by New South Wales, and tho next State elections there will be conducted under it. The cable told us recently that a Proportional Representation Bill had been adopted by the French Chamber of Deputies, and a more recent message has apprised us of the fact that tho House of Commons had passed an urgent measure to apply the system to the coming local government elections in Ireland. Everywhere . the movement progresses, but to prove the contrary ATr Jenkinson quotes the abandonment of proportional representation by tho Christchurch City Council. Bumbledom triumphant, but—ridiculous ' Much as I differ from Mr .Tonkinson, however. 1 am obliged to him for promotmg the discussion of tho subject, Ho renders no disservice to a good cause who proves tho weakness of the case against it. P. 3. O’REGAN. May 4th.