CAN WE GET A BETTER SYSTEM OF VOTING ?

Press, Volume XLI, Issue 6143, 28 May 1885, Page 3

CAN WE GET A BETTER SYSTEM OF VOTING ?

• ■•' " A correspondent writes to the "Pall MaU Budget" to aak whether, now that the proportional representation scheme has been rejected, all attempts to secure an improved system of voting at parliamentary elections are to be abandoned, and he, makes the following suggestions:—" The only proposal tending to freedom of choice which is now likely to be -proposed to the Committee on the Seats BUI is that of the second baUot, - which involves all-the trouble and expense of a double election. If adopted, it is only likely to be resorted

to in extreme cases. Candidates are now being chosen for nearly aU the new constituencies, but chosen by whom ? By two or three hundred gentlemen on each side in each constituency who happen to have : more leisure and more inclination to attend to politics than their neighbors. Their \ decision once male, to bring forward a new candidate wiU be to divide the party and probably ensure defeat. If itwerepracticable, the true system would be for each party to j select its candidate beforehand by a vote [• of the whole party, and not by a selection made by a few prominent party men. I t venture to suggest that it might be possible [to adopt a system of voting combining the | trial of party strength which our present ; system supplies with a trial of strength i between different candidates of the same party. It would then be practicable for several candidates to be nominated on either side without affecting the relative! strength of parties. The rules might be ' somewhat as follows:—1. At any election [ where only one member is to be elected, j any number of candidates may, by giving | due notice of their intention at the time of i nomination, combine together as a party. 2. Each voter shaU have one vote, which may be given to any candidate, whether a member of a party or standing inI dependently. 3. The number of votes I given to each member of a party shaU be added together to form the total number of votes for the party. 4. The total number of votes given to any party shall be compared with those given to any other party, or to any candidate I standing independently, and the party or candidate having the highest number shaU be declared victorious. 6. When, after such comparison, a party has been declared victorious, the candidate in that party having the highest number ot votes shall be declared elected. Of course, under this system the vote of an elector would have a double significance; it would be a vote, in the first place, for his party, and I then a vote for his favorite candidate. WhUe this system is a perfectly simple one, it would, I think, be found to be attended | by the foUowing advantages:—l. It would give the voter a larger freedom of choice. 12. It would enable the opinion of the constituency to be obtained on other questions than those which divide parties. 3. It would take the election of candidates out of the hands of professed politicians, and leave it with the whole party. .4. It would avoid risk of defeat through party divisions. 5. It would enable any number of candidates to be brought forward without endangering the seat for their party. 6. It would in many cases result in the election of more moderate men than those chosen for strictly party purposes. 7. It would to a great extent do away with the temptation to a candidate to give pledges against his convictions to please a small section of a party. That section could have their own candidate, and he would have no chance of success unless he consented to enter into the party combination. 8. A much burger number of voters would probably take part in the election than under the present system.