THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT VOTE.

Press, Volume LI, Issue 15267, 1 May 1915, Page 4

THE SOCIAL-DEMOCRAT VOTE.

tO THE EDITOR OV "THE PRESS." Sir, —I don't know who "Our SocialDemocrat friends" may be, but as a Social-Democrat I disagree entirely with -your statement of our case. On hearsay evidence —"Wo understand," you say—you set up.a dummy-man, and then proceed valiantly to demolish him. I don't know where.you got your figures; whether you "found" them in the street or ''batched" them for yourself. But there is no -denying the fact that the Social-Democrat MayoraJ candidate did not poll nearly as many votes in each ward as were polled by the Social-Democrat candidates in those wards. Your figures in regard to Sydenham are typical of the kind of nonsense you dish up for the delectation of your readers. You say that Mr "McCuilough's total was 1806 votes, and. that "since it is quit 3 certain ..that nraetically everyone who voted in Sydenham voted for Mr McCulloudi this claim of a total of 5445 involves the claim that everyone in Sydenham it a Social-Democrat." But tho Sylenhair Mayoral voting showed that 3080 persons voted there. Therefore at least 127473080 minus 1806) did not vote fot Mr McCullough. Therefore your inference that ."practically everyone who voted in Sydenham voted for Mr Mc Ctillough" 'is self-evidently absurd Again, tho total votes cast for the sir in the Sydenham Ward i° f'sl4 ; divided by t (the maximum voter each elector could exerciso). the low** , jiumbor of rotors for councillors is 2379 instead of ISCS. But all tho elector? did nob cast four votes. Tho very fact that wo had two tickets and six candidates for four seat.s induced plumum** Therefore there were more than 2379 persons voted. Looked at from every point of view, your statements and your lino of reasoning arc wildly inaccurate. —Yours, etc.. T\ SMITH. [Our main contention, ye need hardly cay, was that tbo votes identifiable us Social-Democrat votes in 1913 were far morn numerous than in l'Jl'j.—Ed. 'Tho Press. ,, ].