Electoral Reform

Dominion, Volume 25, Issue 120, 15 February 1932, Page 11

Electoral Reform

Sir, —Unfortunately, none of us are absolutely devoid of prejudice, but we sould try not to demonstrate it to the world at large, as your correspondent “Elector” persists in doing. “Elector” thinks that a majority of one point for Reform is not sufficient on a 74,000-point vote. I am sorry to have to correct his figures again—7B,ooo is nearer correct. I think it is quite a good majority when we take into consideration that Reform had only 1000 first preference votes, as against Labour’s 7000, and United’s 5001. He also thinks it is a bit farfetched. 1 purposely stretched it to show him the “possilibities” of his system. Thefacts, as I see them, need no exaggeration. The poifit remains, to my mind, exactly the same. The “probabilities” are that the majority of the Labour electors would have given their second choice vote, to United, and so United would have gained the seat, but it is absurd for “Elector” to suppose that half the Reform electors would give their second choice vote to Labour, and so let Labour win the seat. However, as fie fittingly remarks, it is “anybody’s seat,” but it does not depend on the preference of the electors, they having already shown their preference by giving Labour 7000 of the 13,000 votes recorded, and so a complete victory over the other two candidates. He infers that it is a mathematical absurdity excuse ’ Let him give an example out of his book of mathematical absurdities to illustrate this point of view, then we may be able to realise this. “Elector” telle us that Labour has a double chance of success. Why? Is it two against one, one against two, or is it a mathematical absurdity? “Elector” pays a graceful compliment to himself when he says that his original letter was an honest endeavour to discover some methods that might perhaps be fairer than our present one, but he does so at the expense of his intelligence when fie claims that the preferential systhein as set out by him in his original letter is an improvement of the present system. Honesty of purpose is a beautiful trait of character, so if “Elector” feels confident that he has discovered a better system, and if with a due sense of responsibility, and in the public interest he feels it to be his duty to reveal it, he should certainly do so.—l am, etc., DHU. February 8. [This correspondence te now closed.]