The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1920. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Southland Times, Issue 18818, 11 May 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 11, 1920. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Steady progress is being made in Britain by the supporters of Proportional Representation, largely as a result of local elections in England and in Ireland. The Irish local elections completely vindicated the system for the British people, if vindication were necessary. As a result of its introduction the true strength of the Sinn I‘cin forces in the various municipalities was disclosed, and their complete domination of most of the southern local bodies was greatly modified. In the north, the Llnionists had bold practically all the seats on the municipal councils and boards in the districts where they were in a majority, but under proportional representation the Nationalists obtained their proportionate voting power on these bodies and the result could not be otherwise than beneficial to the future of the local government of the country. Mixed representation was secured iri practically every case. It remained, however, for the local elections in London to disclose one of the most glaring cases of the misrepresentation of an electorate. In one case the Labour candidates polled 20,000 votes and the Municipal Reform and Progressive candidates secured 27,000 between them, but the smaller number carried all of the nine seats on the council, leaving the majority of the borough without representation! After this contest many local bodies in England, including the London County Council passed resolutions urging the government to introduce proportional representation and as a result the Local Election Proportional Representation Rill was introduced and is now before the House of Commons. Under its provision a local body by a three-fifths majority may adopt the system in its elections. A similar power is already held by local boflies in this country, but though the Christchurch City Council made use of it at one contest, it at once reverted to the old, haphazard method by a narrow majority on a vote that was of a purely party na/f ure. Recently when the British bill was before the House of Lonis, where it originated, Lord Momeaglc skated that in the Irish Municipal Elections seventy per cent of the electors voted and the number of spoiled votes was under three per cent.

This was on the occasion of the first trial of the system and inoit of the invalid votes were lost through technical informalities — (he voting paper net being properly stamped. This Ls in marked distinction from the New South Wales experience, where the percentage of inform,d votes was very high. In New South Wales, however, an unnecessary complication was introduced into the contest, by the provhrion that unless every name on the ballot paper was marked by the voter in order of preference the paper was invalid. In some electorates there were over twenty candidates and the task of marking these in order of preference was simply rejected by the voters as absurd. The introduction of this system was doubtless intended to prevent “plumping,” hut in actuid practice it is entirely unnecessary and its use suggested that the framers of the New South Wains measure either did not understand or did not favour pure reform. Experience of voting under proportional representation, with the single transferable vote, has shown that an order of preference running down to the sixth or seventh figure, is all that is required. In the meantime while the United Kingdom is proceeding enthusiastically with the extension of the use of this system, we in New Zealand are marking time. It is to be hoped, however, that the, matter will be raised in the House when it meets this year, so that wc may have a clear understanding of the position long before we come to the next elections. This country needs propor-

tional representation as much as it needs anything, l