THE LICENSING POLL

Press, Volume LXXI, Issue 21647, 4 December 1935, Page 12

THE LICENSING POLL

DISCREPANCIES IN THE VOTING CORRECTING ERRORS IN OFFICIAL COUNT Discrepancies between the total number of licensing votes and the total number of parliamentary votes shown in the first returns from several Christchurch electorates have been complained of to returning officers by electors interested in the prohibition cause. They claim that although it is not to be expected in each electorate that • the number of votes cast on the licensing issue should coincide exactly with the total voting in the parliamentary election, some of the discrepancies are so large that there must have been errors in the count. For Christchurch North the first returns show that 2173 more votes were cast in the parliamentary poll than in the licensing poll, and in Christchurch East 1293 more for the parliamentary poll than the licensing poll. In every electorate fewer votes were recorded in the licensing poll than in the parliamentary poll, the difference in Christchurch South being four votes, in Avon 97 votes, in Riccarton 377 votes, and in Lyttelton 579. One of the returning officers explained yesterday that the large discrepancies would disappear when the official count was completed. In his own electorate he had discovered on election night that there was a large discrepancy in the number of votes recorded in tho two polls. This had been traced back to a polling place where there were two booths in one building, each under its deputy returning officer. The deputy in charge of the whole place had telephoned the combined parliamentary results of the two booths, but by error had telephoned only the figures for one booth —his own —in the licensing poll. This might have happened in other electorates, and was the most likely explanation of the discrepancies. Such errors were most likely to occur at the largest polling places, where there were many booths. In any case, the first night returns were entirely unofficial. and the count then made was more for the convenience of the public, which naturally wished to gain an indication of the way the election was likely to go, than for any other purpose. The off :ial count now being conducted was the only one that had any significance.