HUMOURS OF THE SECOND BALLOT.

Evening Post, Volume LXXVI, Issue 125, 25 November 1908, Page 8

HUMOURS OF THE SECOND BALLOT.

SOME UNLOOKED-FOR RESULTS. PARLIAMENTARY SIDE-LIGHTS. To pressmen whose duties take- them into the Parliamentary gallery the second ballot has been an interesting ' topic since the Bill was first launched. At one time when the indignation over the "gag" clause was at its height tho measure was the subject of much jourralistic "speculation," and 'its final stages in the Council were followed with unusual interest. Looking back now over the results, the second ballot provides some humorous and interesting reflections. The defeated members who sat in the last Parliament are E. G. Allen, Barber, Barclay, .Chappie, Flatman, A. ■ L. D. Fraser, Gray, Hornsby,'lzard, Kidd, Major, M'Nab, Stevens, Symes, Tanner, and Wood. »• These members were all on the Go- ' vernment side of the House, and, with the exception of Dr. Chappie and Mr. Tanner (who voted against the Bill), and the Hon. R. M'Nab, Stevens* and Symes (who did not vote), every one of them supported the second reading of the Second Ballot Bill. They little imagined what the result would be. 'Of course a few disappeared in the first ballot. Some of the speeches made by members in support of the Bill when it waa before the House are sad reading today Mr. Tanner made the following quotation from the Spectator, and said he -agreed with every word of it : — "The second ballot, which is demanded m some quarters, would only intensify the x real vice of the existing system. As things are, a minority may occasionally affect the result of an election. If it cannot return the candidate it prefers,it can sometimes keep out a candidate yrhom it specially dislikes." He declared that he would do everything 111 his power to oppose the Bill. Dr. Chappie : The evidence thai has accumulated within recent years in favour of preferential voting is very encouraging to those who are in favour of that far-reaching reform. I think that, whilst the second ballot might be justified, for reasons I have stated the preferential-voting system is infinitely • superior, having all the advantages of the second ballot without any of its disadvantages, at the same time being < easy of use and promising that reform which the promoters of the second ballot themselves desire. Mr. Tzard, who favoured the absolute majority (but who failed to get into the second ballot), supported the Bill as "a step in the direction of electoral reform." _ Mr. Barclay's speech is amusing reading at this stage. "I can understand," 'he said, "the very' strong .opposition which tho honouracrkr' gentlemen sitting opposite show to this Bill. I can understand the strength of their criticism and, I .might almost say, the violence of their indignation. If honourable members will look at the lists that are periodically published in the newspapers, they cannot fail to have noted that bj! over the country people are tumbling over each other to become Ministerial candidates. There does not se&m to be such a rush for the band-wagon in the case of gentlemen on the other side, and when there is representation of Opposition views it is generally only one man ■who is standing in that interest. That, of course, is right from these gentlemen's point of view, and it is good tactics indeed. Now, we nave ha<l already wme examples of how a state of 'affairs of that kind results. I do not wish, to allude to particular cases, to any extent more than is necessary, but would 1 put it to any reasonable man whether we did not find in the case rf one election — a • by-election, I think it was — that a gentleman was returned on the Opposition side solely, wholly, and entirely owing to the fact that there were two candidates standing in the Liberal interest — I refer to the case of New Plymouth. Very nearly a similar . case occurred lately at another byelection, only it happened that the Government party was so strong in the electorate that even with two Government candidates standing they were able, - both of them* , tc% poll more votes than did the gentleman who represented the Opposition interest. But it was a case of touch and go, and the result in the Tuapeka election might have been that a member representing only one-third ■ of the people in the district — one-thirl of the political opinion of the district — was returned as the member representing that constituency, and taking his place on the floor of this House as the , kepresentafcive of the people of Tuapeka ' ' as a whole. ' ' ) Mr. Barclay's references to Tuapeka, in the light of what has since happened, are amusing. It should be stated, however, that he was careful to explain that he did not regard the Bill with particular affection, but he was "willing to give the system a trial." Of the twenty two seats decided yesterday, contests between Government and Opposition took place in sixteen instames., In Wellington East it was a battle between • Independence and Labour, at Gisborne an Independent opposed the Hon. Mr. Carroll, -jn Wellirgton Suburbs two Government sup"pcrters fought a finish, the same applies 'to Nelson and Avon, and at Chalmers an» Independent opposed Mr. E. G. Allen. , In the case of the first ballot in the sixteen seats referred to Government candidates were leading in nine instrnces and Opposition in seven. Four " Government candidates failed to "get home" in the "run off," and two Oppositionists. Although the Government led by nine to seven in the first lap, the f.nal gave the Government seven seats and Ihe Opposition nine.