THE ELECTION.

Taranaki Daily News, Volume L, Issue 59, 16 May 1907, Page 2

THE ELECTION.

THE FIGURES ANALYSED. An analysis of the polling returns of Tuesday's election is interesting. For Hie purposes of a comparison with Tuesday's figures with those of the 1005 general election, we assume that the votes cast at the general election for the kilo Mr. Smith,' Messrs. Bellringer, Tisch, and Mills represented the total strength of the Liberal vote, as opposed to the votes cast for tile Opposition candidal". Mr. Okey. To gel a true index »t Hi" town and country figures it is also ii-eei-eiy' to separate these votes, and we hire taken the town vote to include the r.-iunis from Hie central booth (Theatre), Crocker's, Fitzroy, Moturoa, South Koad, Westown, and Vogellown, the balance being treated as the country vote. The following summary, calculated on ilie above basis, clearly shows the position: Town. Country. Government votes (1S05) '2585 SOU Government votes (11)07) 2121 513 Decreases 401 347 Opposition votes (1005).. SlB 807 Opposition votes (1007).. 1015 970 Hi-leases 107 70 It will be clearly seen that, although IhcGoveramentvoleis very much smaller than in 11)05, it has not "been lost from tiie Government to the Opposition, for, alt hough the total Government vote decreased by 808, the total Opposition vote only increased by 270. Carrying the analysis further, it is seen that the Government decrease is accounted lor by a drop votes, while the Opposition vote increased by' in; j u the towu (a 24 per cent, gain), and by 79 in the country, a gain of S',4 per cent, on the 1005 poll. The cut landing feature of the figures speaks conclusively of the superior organisation of Mr. Okey's workers, for, while the poll was smaller by 532 votes than tlii! general election—notwithstanding a new supplementary roll nearly 000 strong--ilt. Okey retained the full siiviigUi of the vote cast for him at last election, with something to spare. That such should be the case, speaks eloquently for the organisation of the Opposition party. We have heard a number of reasons advanced for the drop in the total strength of the poll, and the corresponding drop in the figures cast for the Liberal candidates. That which carries greatest credence with us, is that a large proportion of the prohibition vote, which at the general election was cast for Mr. liellringer, on this occasion abstained from voting, those who did exercise their votes going mainly for -Mr. Okey, whose views are those of (he Prohibition party. In proof whereof, if this analysis counts for aught, we cite the following figures: -Mr. Bellringer in 1005 polled 815 voles, admittedly the vast majority of which were prohibition voles. On this occasion the poll was smaller by 532 votes than in 1005, while ! Air. Okey increased his following by 270. principally iu the town. A simple calculation, 532 plus 270 equals 808, or wiihin voles of that cast for Mr. liellringer last election. We think the evidence- of such an analysis admits of almost no questioning aud demonstrates that the increase in Mr. Okey's strength and Hie decrease in the Government vote, is accounted for almost wholly bv the distribution of Mr. Bellringer's'loos vote. It is very evident that, as we contended all along, the issue was purely a parly one (always exceptinc Hi- vagaries of the Prohibition vote), a. u-.l fought on Hie question of the L ■ ■■:[. ' If

the l,ind lull were the is- ;:-. I ikey I should have gained more t:;,i, i'!i votes in the couutrv. The feeling of (he electorate on the ll'di could hardlv be tested when Ihe whole three candidates were in opposition In many of ils provision.