ANOMALIES

Evening Post, Volume XCVIII, Issue 147, 19 December 1919, Page 6

ANOMALIES

MINORITY ELECTIONS

VOTE-WEtGHT AND PARTY

STRENGTH

THE FIRST-PAST-THE-POST

SYSTEM.

On-almost all hands one. hears criticisms of the electoral system which gives its verdict to the candidate wh&j out of never mind how many, polls the most votes," and has 110 regard for the facV that his total may bo only a minority in fact. Analysis of the results of the election just past gives particularly in-. teresting evidence of the sort of position that is created under the " first-past-the-post-" system. They can be clearly expressed in a few simple tables and brief comments upon them. The total number of valid votes polled was well over half-a-million. By adding the votes of all the candidates wearing similar "labols" together, the distribution of these votes among the parties is obtained, and this is shown in ths following table, in which the data aro given for the elections of 1914 and 1919:— ■ ... .1919 1914 Reform ■ 194,833 ,242,066 : Libera1.....*...". 164,096 219,011 Official Labour 125,970 — Independ. Labour. . 19,001 —. Labour.,. — 53,427 Independent.. 14,424 1,404 T0ta15...'...!..... 518,324 518,907 If these votes were parcelled out in equal amounts to seventy-six appropriate candidates, «o that the parties would be as exactly as possible proportionately represented, the House would be remarkably different from what it now is. The discrepancy in the newly elected House is far greater than was the case after the 1814 elections, ua can be seen from the tabulated statement following. Under thq heading S.P. in each ca6e are given the numbers of members .actually returned; and alongside, headed P.R., are the numbers that would be in due proportion to the electors, as shown in tlie first table. These latter numbers do not work out in complete units, and the nearest whole number is given tp .avoid the -necessity of theoretically electing here and there a man with only one leg, or with no head. i 1919. ■ 1914. S.P. P.R-. S.P. P.lt. Reform -44 29 39 36 Liberal .: 19 '24 31 ■■: 33 Official Labour 8 18 — ,-. Independent' Labour 3 3 — —^ Labour — — 5 8 Independent ......... 2 2 — — An electoral system which returned: members exa-ciiy in proportion to tho weight of party vote therefore would have given Mr. Massey fifteen fewer in [his following; and five of these would, have gone to tha Liberal camp, and ten, to official Labour. Ths preaem, position is that Mr. Massey. heads , a party two and a third times the strength of the Liberals in the House., though the Hoform vote in the country was less than a fifth greater than th» Lib»t*l. Thi, 'Reform candidates together polled a little over half as many again as official Labour; but the Reform candidates electred are five and $ bait, times as numeiI ous. ! Another' way of expressing the game general idea is to compare the recorded [Votes in'terms of,singl2!members. Takj ing the1 whole.'election, each' returned candidate' represents an average electorate of 6817. But onsf Reform member represents on the average 4420 Reform electors] on 6 Libeial speaks for 8645 Liberal members of the populace; and no fewer than 15,740 supporters of Official Labour have to share the service of the imaginary average member of- the colour. The Independents are nearer the niarlfc--6334 for the Labour and 7209 for the plain.'

Three and four-cornered contests contribute largely «to such conditions- as has been set out above. They also re-' suit, in many cases, in tho.return "at the head pf tho poll " of men who actually have only minority votes; and there .are many such cases this year. Jit-the' electorates where more than two candidates went to the poll only seventeen of the winners • had actual -majorities. Twelve of these were Reform, three Liberal, .and two Labour. Their names fol- | low: T. \V. Bhodes, J. S. Dickson, Parr, IViassey, Bollard, Jennings, Lang, Hock: ley, Young,- Sykes, Veitch, Field, Forbes, Sutherland, Nosworthy, Horn, and An- [ derson.' ;■•■•.- The various parties shared very fairly the honour of receiving winners on "minority .votes—-Reform fifteen, Liberal six, Labour four, Independent one. The following list shows the number of votes gained by the candidate, in question and the total of the votes polled for his rivals. . ' ' REFORM. Mander ....:.... 2225 3318 Potter 4026 4942 M'Nfcol ......... 2663 3552 Campbell ...... 3122 4393 Sykes '............ 2296 4342- . Ppwdrell 3199 350 M Oienn ............ 2770 4010 • Luke .;: 3710 4980 Newman, A. K. 4089 5590 Wright .....:... 4280 5187 Hudson „ 2329 3000 Jones :... 2534 3936 . Kicksou, J. M. ... .2599 2999 Malcolm 2129 3432 , Kitchener ■ 2304 3576 LIBERAL. Myers J. 3433 4945 Brown < 2679 5063 Wilford ■.. 3281 4546 Atmore 3293 5807 • , M'Oallum 2353 4245 Witty 2846 4167 LABOUR." Parry ■* 3673 " 404-7 . Savage 3750 4684 Bartram 2991 5207 M'Combs ...... 2939 4125 . INDEPENDENT. Lysnar ......... 2903 4790