General Election

Press, 30 November 1978, Page 16

General Election

Sir, — Comments by Mr Muldoon (“The Press,” November 27) should not be ignored by the public. First, he holds the voter in contempt when he refers to votes for other than National as “wild votes.” This clearly shows his inability to respect the opinions of voters expressed anonymously through the ballot box. Second, is his expressed disappointment over the failure of the public to accept at face value the statements of the two major parties. Is this disappointment tantamount admission of deliberate attempts to mislead the public? For a man who was making credibility an election issue, statements such as these only serve to illustrate his own lack of credibility and to further question his suitability to lead the country for the next three years. — Yours, C. R. MUIR. November 27, 1978.

Sir, — I had always believed that I was living in a democracy, but after reading the election results, my thoughts are rather confused. Although Labour got 25,000 more votes than National it still remains the party in opposition while the 250,000 supporters of the Social Credit Party were only able to elect one member into Parliament; this is not my idea of democracy. Surely it must be obvious that a more equitable voting system must be used. —Yours, etc., BECKY LONG. November 27, 1978.

Sir, — We have now witnessed a return to power of what may be rightly termed a “minority Government,” The “rights” and “wrongs” or the present system of electing a Government will become the subject of endless discussion, until the position can be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties. Is a satisfactory solution at all possible? It seems highly improbable. Had proportional representation applied to the present election we would now have three main parties allotted seats in the ratio of approx. 40 per cent, 40 per cent, and 20 per cent; this would call fc an alliance of a stronger am weaker party. A switch of alliance by the weaker party could result in frequent elections much to the detriment of the country. This is why neither National nor Labour wi' support a proportional representation system. However, an alternative system of election, as in Australia, is worth a close study. — Yours, etc., R. V. SHAW. November 27, 1978.

Sir, — Critics of proportional representation (November 28) are suspect in that their criticism is rarely objective and when subjected to in-depth analysis fails to prove that it is the method which is at fault. How can anyone deny the incongruity of a system such as ours that denies 16 per cent of votes from obtaining 16 per cent of the seats? How can you not approve a method as concerned for representative democracy as the single transferable vote, which allows the voter the freedom to select in order of preference whoever the voter wants elected — knowing the re-

suit to be fair? Why do all Western democracies worthy of the name use proportional representation while so few countries use our convenient two-party method? The old arguments of the critics are suspect in that they are repeatedly disproved and are in most cases erroneous, without substance, misleading and obviously prejudicial. — Yours, etc., L. J. ROBINSON. Kaiapoi. November 28, 1978.