PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Pukekohe & Waiuku Times, Volume 9, Issue 593, 17 December 1920, Page 1

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Sir, —New Zealand papers whicl have recently reached the Unite( Kingdom, contain reports of a debutin Parliament in which it appears t have been stated that proportions lepresentation was a failure in the election of New South Wales Legislative Assembly last April. This is very far from being the case. It is true that the smooth working of the system was greatly prejudiced, as far as Ihe voters were concerned, by a regulation making compulsory the marking of preferences for every candidate. This regulation, which violates the freedom of the elector in the exercise of this franchise, was maintaind in spite of strong efforts of supporters of proportional representation. It was, without doubt, the cause of disfranchising tens of thousands of voters. Apart, however, from this ill-inspired regulation, the system gave excellent results. True, it produced a nearly even balance of parties in the Assembly but for the reason that the main currents of opinion were nearly evenly balanced in the country. Proportional representation did not place a minority parfy in power with a large majority of seats, as did the "first-past-the-post" system in New Zealand at the last election. The general fairness with which proportional representation worked in New South Wales may be judged from the following table, showing the result for the three greatest parties:—New South Wales election, 1920: Official Labour: Votes polled 241,348, seats won 42, votes per seat 5748. Nationalist: Votes polled 164,176, seats won 28, votes per seat 5863. Progressive: Votes polled 82.185, seats won 15, votes per seat 5479. Electors in New Zealand may like to compare these results with those of their own last General Election, which were approximately as follows:—Reform: Votes polled 194,833, seats won 44, votes per seat 4428. Liberal: Votes polled 164,096, seats won 19, votes per seat 8636. Official Labour: Votes polled 125,970, seats won 8, votes per seat 15,746. These are very striking figures. In New Zealand each supporter of the Reform Party has as much weight in Parliament as two Liberals or four members of the Labour Party. The • first-past-the-post" system is in operation also in the United Kingdom, and gives results analogous to those in New Zealand elections. A vote cast for a Coalition candidate in 1918 has about four times as much weight in Parliament as a vote given to a non-Coalition 1 candidate. The latest application of proportional representation in parliamentary elections took place in the city of Winnipeg. The election was in every way a great success. The results were fair. Ten members were elected for the city. Some 48,i)U(j votes were polled, and although there were 41 candidates, only 1.7 per cent, of the votes were invalid, a very good result in view of the cosmopolitan character of the electorate. The British principle of fieedom in preference was adopted. The press was enthusiastic and proportional representation is rapidly extending in Canada. I venture to bring these facts before the notice of your readers so that the bearings of the false step taken by New South Wales may be fully understood. Proportional representation even there fair results, but the regulation foinpellinc elector.-, to mark preference;; for ;ill candidates was both unnecessary and disastrous.

JOHN' HUMPHREYS. Secretary I'lic P.R. Society, Victoria Street, London October Ml.