OUR METHOD OF VOTING

Dominion, Volume 22, Issue 53, 26 November 1928, Page 13

OUR METHOD OF VOTING

Sir The recent Parliamentary elections’afford ample opportunity tor observing the futility of the ordinary crude methods of voting, in the case where there are three or more candidates for One example, taken almost at lanuom, will suffice to illustrate how perverse the results may be. The numbers representing the total votes cast are taken from the published official results, but for obvious reasons, the names of the candidates are replaced by letters of the alphabe . In this constituency, three candidates, ABC polled votes as follows: A, 55278, 4651; C, 2648, and A was declared elected. We shall suppose now that the same election was conducted on a preferential system, every voter being given the opportunity to express his Preferences between the three candidates by arranging them in his order of preterence. Let us suppose that the following were the numbers of voting papers in which the candidates’ names were arranged in the orders indicated: ABC 2000 BCA 4300, CAB 248 ACB 3527, BAG 261, CBA 2400 Totals 5527 4561, 2648. The three totals are just the first preferences for the three candidates, the result of the election according to the ordinary method being based upon these alone, ignoring the other preferences, which the voter is not given an opportunity of expressing. If we count up now the. number of voters who prefer A to B, viz., 2000 plus 3527, plus 248, or a total of 5775; and similarly the number who prefer B to A, and so on, we find:—Number of voters who prefer A to B, 5775; B to A, 6961; A to C, 5788; C to A, 6948; B to C, 6561; C to B, 6175, and it is

clear that a majority of the voters prefer both B and C to A, and the majority prefer B to C; hence, the order of preference favoured by a clear majority of the voters is, without any ambiguity, BCA, and therefore, A should be last, instead of first. As a matter of fact, there is just one case in which the ordinary system of voting can be relied upon to reflect correctly the opinion of a majority of the voters, and that is the case where one candidate has an absolute majority over all the others. —I am, etc., D. M. Y. SOMMERVILLE. Wellington, November 23. “LET US PUT COUNTRY FIRST” Sir, —Why don’t you point out the foolishness of the claims of the . United Party supporters? Surely it. is very ridiculous to hear them claiming that they have swept the country, that Sir Joseph Ward has received a mandate from the country, nnd so on. Sir Joseph Ward has only 25 followers elected to support him. He may capture one or two or even more from the Independ- , ents, but they were not elected as his followers. How absurd, then, to claim that he has a mandate with such a small following in a House of 80 members. The Reform Party secured more seats and more votes than Sir Joseph Wards party at the polls. Let us keep our heads and face the facts. This humbug about the triumph of the United Party suggests that the supporters of that party have lost their heads or that they think the rest of the people have. The Coates Government have . been beaten, but the United Party did not beat them. Because the United Party gained a number of seats, the party appears to have lost its head. Let us be sensible and see the position as it is. No party has a majority in the new Parliament. How is a stable Government to be secured? That is what I and most other electors who are not hidebound party men want to know. bir Joseph Ward was not a success as a Leader in the past, and there is nothing to suggest thnt he is any better to-day. But even so he might make a useful associate with Mr. Coates. A Ministrv headed by Mr. Coates nnd including in its rnnks Mr. Ransom, Mr. Forbes. Mr. Veitch. Mr. Wilkinson, nnd Sir Joseph Wnrd. together with Mr. Downie Stewart. Mr. Wright. Mr. Youn” Mr. D. Jones, would mnke a strong team. Why not?—l November 23. 192<S.