ELECTORAL COUNTING.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXVI, Issue 20249, 8 May 1929, Page 10

ELECTORAL COUNTING.

Before the election of a new Auckland City Council a great deal was said about the cumbrous and irritating method employed, requiring the voter to select 21, or fewer, to support, from a list of 67 candidates. Now the duty has been done, and put comfortably out of the way for two years, it is sincerely to be hoped the question will not be comfortably forgotten until another election is in immediate prospect. The first basis of discussion to be found after the election is furnished by publication of the official returns, giving final figures for comparison with those of the provisional count made on the night of the election. Two points are outstanding. The first is that there were 2933 informal ballot papers. The number seems great, but it is perhaps astonishing there were not more, considering the task the voter had to undertake, remembering how many papers are often made informal when it is only a matter of striking out one name and leaving one. The second is the readjustment of positions between Mr. Bloodworth and Mr. Hutchison. Instead of being 1121 votes behind his rival for first place, Mr. Bloodworth appears 751 in the lead. He stands almost, but not quite, alone in having more votes on the final than on the original return. In every other instance there has been a substantial alteration of scores, the difference generally running into hundreds. This casts no reflection on the returning officer and his staff. It is, indeed, a tribute to them that with all the changes in the figures, the 21 originally announced as elected members are still on the list of the successful. That, coupled with the speed shown in completing the provisional count, shows there were careful organisation and clerical efficiency behind the electoral arrangements. Even so, the burdensome task that must be faced by the electoral officers once the booths are closed is another argument against allowing the system which has prevailed up to the present to continue any longer. If the method of election were the best possible, the clerical difficulties would have to be tolerated. Since it is not, far from it indeed, for reasons already sufficiently discussed they strengthen the case for reform. When, therefore, all the drawbacks of what may be called a mass election are remembered in the demand for something better, the complications of vote counting should be numbered among them.