"PERPLEXITIES OF P.R."

Auckland Star, Volume LIV, Issue 101, 30 April 1923, Page 4

"PERPLEXITIES OF P.R."

The "Herald" publishes to-day a message from Christchurch that, in conjunction with its headings. "Bewildered Electors," -"Perplexities of P.R.," '"Many Voters Nonplussed," "Informality the Result," is calculated to give an unfair impression of the working of proportional representation in the Christ- • church municipal election. "The proportional representation system of marking the paper caused the g-ealcst difficulty," we are informed, and an official is reported as saying he would never forget the things some of the voters said about tlie system. It is also stated that whereas in the Mayoral election, for which there were only two candidates, the pei'ecntujre of informal votes was slightly over 2 per cent, the percentage in tlie Council election, held under P.R., xvas over 7 per cent. It is only right that the confusing- circumstances surrounding this choice under P.R. should be explained. All voters had four papers to fill in, and ratepayers had five, and there were three voting systems in operation. On the Mayoral election paper the voter had to put a cross opposite the candidate he favoured. On the papers for the City Council, the Hospital Board, and thp Harbour Board he had to show his preferences by placing the figures 1, 2, .'?, 4, etc., opposite candidates' names, and on the loan proposal paper he had to cross out a line. Is it x-ery surprising that there xvas a good deal of confusion? The late Mr. George Hogbon. who was specially engaged to assist in the first Christchurch municipal election held under the P.R. system, drew attention to this in his report on the election. "The^method of marking voting-papers should be the same in all elections or polls,"' he xvrotc. "There are noij three methods, which arc apt to confuse electors." The Christchurch "Press," which is strongly opposed to r.R., said in its report of last week's elections that "to the different methods of voting is probably due the abnormal number of invalid voles recorded." We may expect, however, that the opposition to P.R. will use the above percentage of informal votes as an argument against the system. It may be pointed out in anticipation that the percentage in the first P.R. election in 1017 was 4.57, which is considerably less than 7, and that the percentage of papers rendered informal by failure to understand tlie new method of voting (excluding those not marked fit all) was only 1.1)8. If the people of Christchurch understand the system less well now than they did at first, the blame can hardly be laid at the door of tho system. Bfesides, P.R. is understood in other countries. In the elections for the Ulster Parliament in 1021 the percentage of invalid papers was 1.01 per cent, and in several districts it xvas lower than 1 per cent. These figures embraced all causes of invalidity; for example, out of '252 invalid papers in one place 6-1 did not bear the presiding officer's mark. The percentage of invalidity arising from failure to use the system correctly was considerably lowfr than the above figures. It will hardly be contended that the average electoral intelligence in Xew Zealand is lower than in Ulster. ;