The Thames Star. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1911. EDITORIAL.

Thames Star, Volume XLVII, Issue 10352, 28 April 1911, Page 2

The Thames Star. Resurrexi. FRIDAY, APRIL 28, 1911. EDITORIAL.

ELECTION REFLECTIONS

ANOMALIES AND MISTAKES,

Now that tlio elections are over we may refer to one or two anomalies in •oonnection with thel method, and sarnie 1 evident misa.pprehens.ion as to thia manner of voting 1. In the fii-.-t, place wo think that "plumping for candidates should bei prohibited by act of Parliament and that a' stipulation should bei made that unless voters exercisJef their full franchise and vote for a number of ■candidates equal to t-lio mnnlbtetf of vacancies- to be filled thieir voting 1 papers should he treated ay invalid. It is an absurdity to think that in som© cases only one or two vbtes are oa.st, when the voter has the privilege of voting' for nine, alid in the ciasw of cdtieis fifteen, candidates. It seems to us to be a. wanton tiisroffard of the public) responsibilities thrown upon tmrpfosdes and we" liope that an amondHnemt of tho Act will Ive introdudesd making 1 it mandatory that in all electiorns for public positions thcs3 eligible to vote should exercise Ilvelr full memsurc of public i'etpoi:siluility, !by voting what is known as the full ticket in each and every case. +We would have the condition, apply io school com mi tit co elections also, where it hns Ixen known that the ■"plumping" system has led to undesirable and disturbing olonionts li-jinu' introdtic-ed. Of courso thot« who favor tho system of proportional representation will hold that the adoption of ilieir nvethod will remove many of the present anomalies :vn;d wo are propar-t-d to admit that there is a good deal in tho contention. But the 'introduction «f the proportional system of representation is still a, long way oil. while tho pawing of the amendment •wo have ;ndii;atoil is. we believe, casv «>f achievement,

Anotlicr «viint is that tin. system nf plucin? a cross opposite thy luiiiie' of the cimcl'idi.i.tL' for whom tliv voter drrfres {:• vi^to i« cnlctiluU'il t«' nii»lend. Tin; <lirccti<Mi.< are sn i«'itt<;i«lictory. On tliL' i.ne hnml the voter may striksi out the nam; of the candidates for whom lie > r >lie desires ■noti to Vote, ihus leaviii'j: untimoluMl the names' rf the cnnd;'Tsi-'.-; for whom the votes a.i^ t^ he- >v>-t. On the other hand the voter is. UM to put n cross opposite tlw ii«i»K-a of iha canduhnrs foi' whom lid or slip desires to vcte and to leave untouched the names of

the candidate for whom he or shy does not intendi to vote. Her© quite contrary rales apply. Small wander is that many mistalkes occur. In the Thames election there were instances of a voter putting a, cross apposite the natnles of two oamdiates. As nine out of the eleven candidates could I bb ejected is not the inference that the! -vfotier intended not tq vote. for 1 tho two candidates whose names hiethought he ■vcias striking out, ibut intendted to give; each of the nine others a vote B*ut what happened? The vote clounteid as a, "plumrp" for the two candidate) whom the Voter desired to reo at the bottom of the poll. Thewhole biusineiss is unnecessarily complicated and unsatisfaiotoiy and with the experience of previous elections to piido theon, surely our legislators dart sociure an amiemdlment to the. Ac', so th.at thia system m-av boradidallv ohanged and consider'albly improved.