Local Elections

Press, Volume CIV, Issue 30882, 15 October 1965, Page 16

Local Elections

Sir. —In your leading article this morning you state that there were 125 polling places for the local elections. I am open to correction, but if a list of these, headed by their various districts, had been on display, or published in the press, 1 failed to see them. In the four local elections in which we have recorded our vote the first three were held in different polling places, and only by wandering round in a car did we manage to find them. Yesterday, with no prior knowledge of where to go, we eventually did our civic duty after having had two misdirections. It was a nice afternoon, but a prolonged and unpremeditated tramp of some three miles is not one of our favourite amusements, and we have no car. The smallness of the poll which you deplore may be in part due to this official vagueness. We tried to ring the City Council for guidance, but received no reply.—Yours, etc., I.S.T. October 11. 1965. [The returning officer for the City of Christchurch (Mr C. S. Bowie) replies: “So far as the city was concerned, a full list of polling places was displayed in the foyer of the council offices and published in both newspapers on Saturday, September 18, together with the names of nominated candidates. This information is required by law to be published ‘forthwith’ after the close of nominations. The matter was further discussed in a radio broadcast from Station 3ZB during ‘Canterbury Roundabout’ on Friday, October 8. Listeners were advised to telephone 71-679 shou'd they wish to locate the nearest polling place. Two operators were on duty all day on polling day to deal with these inquiries.”]

Sir. —“S.G.E.” has a point but unfortunately the public have little right to complain if their county council is unable to meet their wishes and demands. Only a few are prepared to vote, let alone undertake responsibility for the welfare of the city. The noble aged who attempt to hold the city together have well and truly earned the right to retire and enjoy the “modern requirements of a growing . city.” Though their efforts may be “just not good

enough,” surely they are better than an empty house. If any capable of replacing ‘mere longevity in public service” exist, why do they not offer their services and prove their mettle? It is time to criticise when one has pulled one’s weight in community service.—Yours, etc., C.W.C. October 14. 1965.

Sir, —I suggest that at the next elections booths be placed to suit the convenience of the ratepayers and not the polling clerks. We in Merivale had the choice of driving or walking about three-quarters of a mile either to Rugby street or Bealey avenue, and when we arrived we found the clerks sitting like roses in a flower show, most of them doing nothing, as there were six groups of them and many ratepayers jus* had not bothered to make the journey to vote. I suggest that in this area, booths, manned with one set of clerks, should be located in each of the main streets: Rossal street, Merivale lane, Winchester street and Rugby street. Other suburbs should be similarly well served Then, perhaps we should have a greater poll.— Yours, etc., MERIVALE RATEPAYER. October 12, 1965. [The returning officer for the City of Christchurch (Mr C S. Bowie) says: “1 should like to thank the correspondent far his suggestion, but would point out that Rossall street was well catered for with a single-unit booth in the Fulton avenue hall. Merivale lane was also catered for by a single unit in the Rang! Ruru School. It was thought that the Methodist Schoolroom in Rugby street would adequately serve Winchester and Rugby street residents, but a transfer of one unit rom Rugby street to a site in the vicinity of St. Margaret’s College in Winchester street or Andover street would be well worthy of consideration in future. Perhaps the correspondent might like to suggest a convenient building or site.”]