The Press. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1896. A VOTING MACHINE.

Press, Volume LIII, Issue 9862, 11 March 1896, Page 4

The Press. WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 1896. A VOTING MACHINE.

The London Tinies has a long contributed article in a recent issue, entitled " The Procedure at Elections," which has many interesting features. It points out what a number of elections are decided by very small majorities, so that errors in polling and counting must often affect the result. The Times writer estimates that the total number of spoilt papers at a general election is about 20,000. It is admitted that as the contests decided by small majorities are pretty evenly divided between the two great parties, the actual general result of the election might possibly not differ much from what it is at present if all possibility of error in the taking and counting of votes were obviated. But naturally this cannot be considered a reasonable excuse for refraining to take such steps as will remove the possibility or, at any rate, the probability of error. The method of recording votes at present in use in the Mother Country differs somewhat from what we are accustomed to here. The voter in England on entering the booth gives his name and address to the polling clerk. His number on the roll is then discovered, and is written down in the ballot book. This book contains detachable ballot papers and corresponding counterfoils which are consecutively numbered, each detachable paper and its counterfoil having the same number, as is the case with cheque books. These numbers are on the back of the counterfoil. The voter's number on the electoral roll is then written on the counterfoil only, and the ballot paper is detached from the counterfoil, stamped by the presiding officer with an official mark, and handed to the voter. The counterfoil has therefore now two numbers, the voter's mimber on the roll and the number of the voting paper. By this mean 3, in the case of a scrutiny, all votes can be traced. On receiving the voting paper the voter proceeds to one of the voting compartments, marks his paper, folds it up and puts in the box. We do not gather how the papers are supposed to be marked in England. In this colony the plan is to strike out the names of those candidates the voter wishes to vote against. The spoilt voting papers are spoiled in two ways. Strange to say a great many are spoiled because the presiding officer omits to put his official stamp on them. He *is liable to a heavy fine for mistakes of this sort, but such fines are apparently never imposed. Certainly, it might have been expected that a mistake of this soft could hardly ever occur. The other cause of papers being spoiled is the stupidity or perversity of voters in either not marking the papers at air or marking them wrongly, or by adding remarks or signatures, all of which misdeeds vitiate a voting paper.

As we have said, The Times estimates that at a British general election no less than 20,000 votes are spoiled in this way. The trouble is not over, however, when the voting papers are deposited in the ballot box. There, is the work of counting yet to be done. With the large number of the voters in many British constituencies this is a formidable task of which we in New Zealand/with our comparatively small constituencies, have very little idea. Mistakes may arise in various ways. It is said, according to The Times, that a recount has never tallied, with the original result. The delay occasioned by the length of time involved in counting and recounting tens of thousands of votes, and the consciousness of errors in the counting being only too frequent, have stimulated invention in the direction of mechanical appliances for polling which would abolish hand counting altogether. According to The Turns by far the most complete seems to be one patented by Mr. W. H. Howe. In this the voter, we are told, passes into the polling chamber by a turnstile, which locks itself after him, and is unlocked by his passage out through a second turnstile. Inside the voter sees the names of the candidates printed up in a row before him, and differently coloured for the sake of illiterate voters. Below the names is a travelling pointer, which is moved along by turning a handle. All the. voter has to do is to turn the. handle until the pointer is opposite the right name or colour, and then leave the chamber by the second turnstile. His vote is recorded by a printing apparatus actuated by the turnstile. Thus each person who enters is absolutely precluded from voting more than once or otherwise tampering with the apparatus, because he can only vote at all by leaving it. This ingenious invention, indicated above in the barest outline, fulfills all and more than all the provisions and intentions of the Ballot Act. It ensures absolute secrecy, gives effect to the voter's intentions without fail, provides for a scrutiny by which each vote can be traced in a moment and abolishes counting. The votes are printed in consecutive numbers and therefore the last one recorded for each candidate gives the total of Ms poll. All this supposing that the machine will work. It has not yet been tested practically, but Mr. Howe proposes to place one at the disposal of members of Parliament at Westminster for trial. Assuming that it does all that he claims, however, there is still the elector to be reckoned with. Dilatory or troublesome voters do not block the poll now, but with one of these machines TJie Times thinks they would, because only one could vote at a time. " Voters would come up, would pass " into the chamber, and not a few " would never come out again, not " because the procedure was too diffi- " cult, but because it was too simple. " The present manner of voting has " at least a kind of I-deliver-this-as- " my-act-and-deed flavour, which " appeals to them, but even that seems " too simple, so mighty are the issues " hanging upon .the act, according to

" electioneering rhetoric. Turning a " handle and going away would appear " utterly inadequate, and they would " hang about in uncertainty until " tho Presiding Officer came to ; ' their rescue. That, however, though a " practical is not an insuperable qb- " jection in view of. the great advan- " tages of accuracy, expedition, and " reduced cost which would be secured " by tho use of a satisfactory mechani- " cal appliance."

In New Zealand it cannot be pretended that the evils of the present non-mechanical system are anything like so great as in England. The average colonial voter is for one thing much more intelligent than the average English voter, and the objection of The Times to this machine would not have any weight here. If Mr. Howe's machine is as good as it would appear to be, it would be a great boon to introduce it here, if the expense is not prohibitive. There would be so much saving in clerical labour that, unless the machines are very expensive, the first cost of them would be met to a large extent by the saving in labour and other expenses at the first election held with the machine. It would, at any rats, be worth while if some member of our Parliament would make it his business to get, either through the Agent-General or otherwise, further particulars of Mr. Howe's machine and its cost, and so forth. It would certainly be a very great advantage if the result of the poll at each booth could be known the moment after the voting closes.