The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun. WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1935. VOTE-SPLITTING DAGGERS.

Auckland Star, Volume LXVI, Issue 275, 20 November 1935, Page 6

The Auckland Star WITH WHICH ARE INCORPORATED The Evening News, Morning News, The Echo and The Sun.

WEDNESDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1935. VOTE-SPLITTING DAGGERS.

For the cause that lacks assistance, For the wrong that needs resistance, For the future in the diaiance. And the good, that \ce can do.

In the genernl election campaign of 1028 the entry of the United Party resulted in widespread vote-splitting, which had grotesque results. There were three or more candidates in 53 out of the SO electorates, and in all but 12 of these the successful candidate failed to poll a majority of the votes east. The. result of the election was treated as an expression of no-confidence in the Reform Party, which upon suffering defeat in the House went into Opposition. The United Party, though only the second largest group, formed a Ministry, which held office during- the pleasure of the Labour Party. Thus those electors who had been dissatisfied with the Reform Government, but had riot been prepared to vote for Labour, made possible a Government which was dependent upon Labourfor its existence. That situation continued for more than two years, and was ended when the economic crisis arose. The Government, realising that measures of economy and retrenchment had become essential, endeavoured . to induce both Opposition parties to share the burden. Negotiations to this end failed, and the Government turned to the Reform Party, with the result that the Coalition Government was formed. It should be. noted that the party which had been rejected in 1928 joined with the party which had caused its defeat, and in 1931 the combined parties were given a very substantial majority at the polls. ' The electors should consider the situation' to-day. The Democrats, who once had hope of repeating the United Party's success, still hope to win enough seats to enable them, in combination with the Labour Party) to defeat the Government. But if the Government were so defeated the Democrats, according to their leader, who ought to know, "would not put Labour into power." What, then, would remain except a dissolution and another election? Would Mr. Hislop (if elected) with a possible handful of candidates expect to hecalled on to form a Ministry ? If so, to which of the other parties —Nationalist or Labour — would he turn for support? Obviously, the Democrats arc much further removed from the Labour Party than the United Party was in 192&, and Mr. Savage would be justified in exacting a heavy price for his support. And if the Democrats turned to the Nationalists the situation would be ludicrous, for the remaining members of a party which had just been rejected at the polls would- rber controlling the new Government. These are some of the undesirable; situations which may be brought about if the electors next Wednesday do not discriminate between those forces in politics which are permanent and those which are transitory. The ' differences between the Nationalists and the Labour Party are real and enduring; the differences between the Nationalists .and the Democrats are not. There is not the slightest reason to believe that, even if the Democrats secured a majority, their administration would be sounder or more pleasing to the country > than the administration of the Nationalists has been. . The combination of three parties and the existing electoral system may frustrate the electors if they are not alive to its dangers. By voting for a Democrat candidate they will not necessarily ensure his election, but they may easily make possible the return on a minority vote of : the candidate of that party for which they have least regard.