THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Wairarapa Age, Volume XXV, Issue 10713, 20 May 1913, Page 4

THE Wairarapa Age MORNING DAILY. TUESDAY, MAY 20, 1913. PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

iln. view of tlio fact that the Massey Government contemplates applying the system of proportional' representation to the election of tho Legislative Council, it is interesting to learn something of the operation of the system in other countries. It has been tried at three successive elections of th© Lower House of tho Tasmanian Parliament, and The Times correspondent gives an exceedingly interesting account of the way in which it •has worked. It appears that in actual operation certain unsuspected defects have been revealed' which had not been anticipated even ;by critics of the system. Nevertheless, the main advantages claimed for it have been realised. There has been a very small proportion of informal votes. No difficulties have occurred over the counting of the votes, and there has been no serious delay in obtaining tho results of the election. All three elections have given accurate representation to both parties in proportion to the number of their supporters. The very accuracy of the representation, indeed, has proved embarrassing. There ar e really only two parties in Tasmania. In the last Parliament their numbers were 16 to 14. 'When the Speaker was elected' the Government toad a majority of one, and that one iffas en "Independent." Th© posi-

tion soon became demoralising, and waa at length. endejcl by a dissolution. The rocent elections left tho strength of parties oxactlv as before but removed tlho "Independent" in favour of a direct supporter of the Government. The Ohristciliurch Props' says that where the (system lias fallen short lias boon in failing to reflect the wishes of the electors in the choice of individual ropr ..'sen natives. iSonui of tho ablest and most popular members of earth party have been rejected in favour in interior representatives of the same political views. This h:;s come alirrut in a very .simple way. It has 'been, tho fault, not of tho system, but of the way in whic'h it ha,s been worked . Tasmania is divided into six districts, each returning five members. Each elector must numlier at least 1,2,3 in order to give a valid vote. He is supposed to number them in tho order of (his preference. If the candidate with th:e highest rm ruber of first preference votes polls more than tho .number required to secure his election (called the quota) the surplus votes aro distributed among other ean. dicfofces according to the -narking of the «econd and third preference votes on the pa|HT. Tho electors, in many cases, have not marked the papers in strict order of preference. Take a district in which each party feels sure of getting three memlters aaid hopes to return a fourth. Every effort is naturally made to secure the return of the fourth. As The Times correspondent explains, if A, 13, C, and I) are recognised by the party supporters .as their best four candidates in order of merit .a number of electors will ibo found who think they will help to the desired resnjilt of four seats for their party by giving first choice to 1), the weakest of tho four. This is not infrequently overdone, with the result that A, the safe man, is rejected in favour of 1) the weakest of the four. A '.si.tti.ilai' "contretemps" may arise when the p i rty aim at getting only three seats, and there is a difference of opinion as to whether C or 1) is tho better man for the third -seat. The question may lie personal, or it may be one of itolicy, if C and D represent different wings of the same party. A and B being regarded as certain, the chief interest of the contest centres on the third .seat. "The opponents of I) then give tiheir first preference to C to ensure D's rejection and vice versa 'although both factions prefer A and B. "The result miay very easily be that both 0 and D are elected and either A or B rejected, a result which perhaps not 10 per cent of tho electors desired." This result ha-s been brought abotiife. as our readers will .see, by a very fine •and accurate instrument ibeing improperly u.sed, but human nature being wlliat it is especially at election times, the chances are that the voters will persist in their misuse of it with results not at all contemplated by the founders of the system. Comparing the results of the last three Tasmania n elections, .it .seems that a few outstanding men —three or four out of a House of thirty—can be sure of a solid No. 1 vote from their party; but I that all w'tho have not this special preeminence, "however good their record, are liable to be .rejected at any election for no reason at all." It is not only the loss of good men which lias to be deplored, but tlhe disintegrating affect upon party loyalty. Experience in Tasmania has also proved disillusioning in other respects. It wias thought possible for a man to run successfully on purely political lines —on his public record .in the past, and his general political appeal in the present. That dream, The Times correspondent tells us, is shattered. "Candidates are faced with much of the old necessity of figihting and scheming for personal support under conditions which are worse than the old ones; for they must do so against their friends; and tihev must do so in oon.stituencies six times larger where tho size adds to the expense of time and money, and to tihe coarseness of the electioneering methods." To sum up, we (have -another illustration that no human invention is perfect. .Proportional representation, excellent as it is, evidently has its defects.