LAND BOARD ELECTION.

Southland Times, Issue 18832, 27 May 1920, Page 4

LAND BOARD ELECTION.

The proximity of the election of a representative of the Crown tenants to the Southland Land Board and the interest that is being taken in the contest this year should serve to direct attention to the antiquated and pernicious system of voting that is followed. In this country we rather pride ourselves upon the purity of the ballot box and in a long series of years we are entitled to credit ourselves with a record that shows that insofar as the machinery of the voting is concerned we have been remarkably free of anything for which we need blush. We have gone to pains at the same time to preserve the secrecy of the ballot time and again and we have jealously guarded that vital safeguard to the liberty of choice. Occasionally, however, we find imperfections in some of our minor elections and the process by which the Crown tenants select their board repre sentative is one. The tenants received their right to elect one member of the land

board for their district in the session of 1907 and the regulations providing the machinery for the election 6l that member were isued a little later. Under this system the Crown tenant' receives a voting paper by mail, marks it, attaches his signature and returns it to the land board office. Here we have the pernicious system of “open” voting with all its dangers. It should not be necessary in these days to go into the details of the dangers that arise through the use of such a system, but the arguments' that were advanced to secure secrecy in the case of election of members of parliament apply with equal and even greater force to the election of the tenant’s representative. The Crown tenant is at the mercy of the land board in a hundred different ways and while we do not suggest that there have been any incidents to support the theory that a tenant may suffer as a result of the direction in which his vote has been cast, the mischief does not end there. The tenant may be in no danger, but so long as he, rightly or wrongly, fears that his personal interests may be jeopardised or advanced by the fact that his manner of voting may come to the knowledge of the board, there can be no- freedom of choice. The system is so obviously dangerous that one wonders why it has been permitted to continue as long as it has done because there are several methods that suggest themselves by which a mail ballot can be conducted without its secrecy being endangered. It is not necessary for any section of the Crown tenants to advance these arguments; they should be apparent to the Lands Department, they should have been acted upon years ago. No arguments worthy of a moment’s consideration can be advanced in favour of the present system and it would be to the country’s advantage if a change were made forthwith. It is probably too late to effect any alteration in connection with the present election—though there are potent arguments in favour of an immediate change even at the cost of a postponement of the election; but it is to be hoped that the matter will he rectified before f lie next contest, comes round. We hope that the matter will not be dismised with the plea that it affects all candidates alike and that the Crown tenant has as much to fear in the case of one man being elected as he has in the return of another. That plea does not touch the principal issue. It is true that the present system must always act in favour of a sitting member seeking re-clection, hut that is not the vital point. The issue fines down to the fact that- the Crown tenant should have freedom of choice and that under the “open” system of voting he cannot hope to get that. If he has not freedom of choice the system of election is bad, it should not be tolerated for a moment, itmould not be permitted to continue ns a blot upon the legislation of this country.