VOTING SYSTEM.

Auckland Star, Volume LXII, Issue 214, 10 September 1931, Page 20

VOTING SYSTEM.

LOCAL BODY -ELECTIONS

HOUSE REJECTS AMENDMENT.

(By Telegraph.—Press Association.) WELLINGTON, Wednesday. : The Local Elections and Polls Amendment Bill was rejected by the House of Representatives in Committee this evening. Mr! H. G. R. Mason (Labour, Auckland Suburbs) said the bill empowered local authorities, if they so desired, to employ an alternative system of voting. It would permit them to employ the "cross" system. Mr. C. L. Carr (Labour, Timaru) said he did nOt think placing a cross opposite the names of those for whom electors wished to vote was altogether satisfactory. It would be preferable for electors to place a "tick" opposite the names of candidates for whom they wished to vote. . Mr. A. E. Jull (Government, Waipawa) suggested Mr. Mason should agree to limiting operations of the bill to large cities. He considered it was only in large cities that there was need for the change. Mr. Mason said he would have no objection to this course, but did not think it necessary, because no local authority would make the change unless it felt the need for it. Mr. C. H. Clirikard (Government, Rotorua) suggested it would tend to eliminate errors if electors, instead of placing crosses on the voting papers, were requested to place numerals against the names of those for whom they were voting. For instance, they would the figure 1 against the first candidate, for whom they were voting, the figure 2 against the second and so on, with the result that they would know exactly when they had voted for the correct number. This would avoid counting up the number of crosses. Mr. Mason said no one would be more pleased than himself if the House would agree to this system. He had originally favoured this course, but had introduced the bill in its present form because he thought the House was more likely to agree to a system with which the electors were already somewhat familiar. Mr. A. Harris (Reform, Waitemata) said under the present alphabetical arrangement, candidates at the head of the list had better prospects than those at the bottom, because unless the man at the bottom was an outstanding figure, it was quite possible that many electors would have voted for the full number! before they reached his name. The bill was rejected by 38 votes to 24, when a division was taken on the short title.