The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1920. PARTIES AND VOTING.

Southland Times, Issue 18837, 2 June 1920, Page 4

The Southland Times PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. WEDNESDAY, JUNE 2, 1920. PARTIES AND VOTING.

This morning we publish an analysis of the young at the last elections prepared by the Lyttelton Times. We do so for the [impose of showing how easily a newspaper usually well-informed can go astray when it looks at facts through party spectacles. It will be noticed, in the first place, that a strikingly powerful case is made against the anomalies that are inseparable from the "first-past-lho post” system. The fact that in twenty-seven electorates the representative of the constituency was returned as victor by a minority vole is enough to condemn any system, but in addition we have the fact that the seventy-six candidates elected to the House of Representatives

were sent there by 270,.‘>73 voters, leaving 2do,l’d? unrepresented, while if wo add the

informal votes to this latter figure we find that the electors who went to the poll and did not succeed in securing representation in the House numbered only 8419 less than those who supported the successful members. As a matter of fact only 51.47 of the electors who cast valid votes gained representation in Parliament. It is impossible to defend a system which constitutes the assembly having control of the legislative and administrative functions on such a lop-sided anti unstable basis. The Lyttelton Times, however, proceeds with its analysis from this point on purely party lines and after some interesting calculations arrives at conclusions which it probably finds very satisfying despite its manifest absurdities. The Christchurch journal goes to the trouble of adding up the figures cast for the various party candidates and finds that the result is as follows: Votes Cast. Reform 107,020 Liberal 153,941 Labour 135,355 Independent 56,224 As far as they go these figures need not be questioned; but what deductions can be drawn from them ? The Lyttelton Times says that these figures prove that The government of the country is in the hands of representatives whose political convictions are shared by only 36.3 per cent of the voters, constituting 24.7 uer cent of 'the electorate.

But in saying that the Lyttelton Times ,'s simply talking party nonsense. It has fallen into the simple error of thinking that the votes cast for the candidates of any

party represent the sum total of that puny's strength in the grand electorate. It does not trouble to explain the entire dis appearance of Reform votes in the electorates in which no candidates stood in that party’s interests. We take sixteen of the contests at the last elections and find that there were no official Reform candidates in

them. In these seats in the previous contests Rc.onn candidates secured over 43,000 votes. Where did they vote in 1919? How dors the Lyttelton Times discover the number of supporters of Mr Massey in Invercargill. who, having no other choice, had to cast their votes for either Liberal or Labour? Is it possible to say how the Reform supporters in Christchurch North voted as between Mr Isitt, the Liberal and Mr Armstrong, the Labour candidate? How many supporters of Mr Massey voted for Mr Downie Stewart and Mr Stalham, who were standing as Independents and are included under that heading, rather than support their Labour opponents? Frankly, it is utterly impossible to discover under the present electoral system what actually is the voting strength behind any party in (he country and a newspaper which in these times attempts to convince its readers that it can do so merely endangers its reputation for sane thinking. Nor is it reasonable to estimate from the votes cast under the present haphazard system what the results under proportional representation would be. The Lyttelton Times, with its party traditions, may lie excused for believing that the electors under P.R., will vote in party bat talions and behave like good party sheep. But who can tell how the transference of surplus voles will turn out unless (he ballot papers are actually in existence to enable the count to he made? We confess to hemp eager for the introduction of a rational electoral system, not because it will benefit this or (hat party, not because this or that politician will be able to attain office by means of it, but because the government it the country - should be firmly based upon approval qf the majority of the electors the House should be an accurate reflection of the weight of political opinion in the country and because all sections should have a voice in the conduct of public affairs. The analysis made by the Lyttelton Times we freely admit affords further proof, if, proof is really needed at this late date, of the absurdities of the system now in force; but it proves nothing more, except the peculiar effects of party politics upon a newspaper’s powers of deduction.