PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Taranaki Daily News, 29 December 1922, Page 5

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

HOW IT WORKS OUT. “Watchdog” writes to the editor; — Sir, —J net how far the advocates of proportional representation have considered the working out of such a system, and what it would lead to, ishard to say. In theory it may superficially appear as a more just system than the present, but, like many, things theoretically Attractive, the practical working out W>uld be likely, or even sure, to lead to conditions far less desirable than those replaced. It would be well, so that a comparison may be drawn, to review our present system. Our present system is a simple one of majority rule, tempered by opposition. At the elections the candidate who gets the majority of the electors votes secures the seat.* The party which secures the majority of seats has the majority of votes, and therefore provides the Government. But the minority (electors who cast their votes for defeated candidates and members in the opposition) play a most important and essential part in our .present system, they, both the general electors and members of the House, being the critics who keep the Government in check, prevent abuse of power, star chamber practices, inefficiency, etc., and who are ready to make the* most of any failure or lapse so that they may grasp the reins of .power. This results in a healthy alternation of Government. As the Government representing one party ceases to give satisfaction to the greater body of electors, it is replaced by another Government representing the other party, and the displaced party in turn become the critics.

The system of proportional representation, if carried out to its logical conclusion, would be the absolute antithesis of our present system. Every vote -would be a “winner.” There would be no opposition party, either among the general electors or the members of the House. No opposition to the Ministry, for once the principle of proportional representation is adopted as the right of the electors as to members of the House, logically it would have to be adopted as their right as to members of the Government. The replacing majority rule by general representation of all. including minorities, must apply to the constitution of the Ministry, as well as to that of the House. There could be no opposition, and no criticism, as each elector and each member of the House would have their share of representation within the Ministry.

The evils that would inevitable arise out of such a system can easily be conceived. Suppose a Ministry made up of five Reform, four Liberal, and three Labour —a Reform Prime Minister, Reform Ministers of Finance, Railways, Defence and others; Liberal Ministers of Justice, Agriculture, Internal Affaire, Valuation, etc.; Labour Minister of Labour, Aline, Marine, Land and Income Tax, Industries and Commerce, etc. Either there would be a continual war waged within the Ministry between the conflicting elements, during which the interests of the country would be wholly neglected, or deliberately sacrificed by the clashing political desires, or, on the other hand—and that the certain outcome—it would be found that; there was no place in such a Ministry for honest men whose chief desire was the welfare of the country. The whole standard would be lowered, and the Ministry would bo composed of self-seekers prepared to carry on star chamber practices and divide the spoils-, leading to systematic graft. * To all drawbacks as suggested has to be added the primary one of replacing the present system of small, one man electorates - nder which the elector is in close and intimate touch with his representative and in which most of the interests are in common, for a system of large—very large if proportional representatidn is to be carried out. anyway exactly—electorates in which no more than the names of most of the candidates will be known to their electors.