Evening Post. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1922. SWING OF THE PENDULUM

Evening Post, Volume CIV, Issue 122, 20 November 1922, Page 6

Evening Post. MONDAY, NOVEMBER 20, 1922. SWING OF THE PENDULUM

'A comparison of the votes recorded for the different parties at the British General Election with the seats that they have won in 'the new House supplies a glaring illustration of the imperfection of the -electoral system which Britain and New Zealand share in common. The incompleteness of the returns and the omission of the aggregate votes cast for the fourteen candidates classed as "various" prevent a mathematically exact comparison, but it is possibly to arrive at an approximate result which is sufficiently near the mark for all practical purposes. The aggregate voting for the rival parties, with some returns still to come, is reported to-day as follows : — Consorvatives 5,746,000 - Labour :'.....'. 4,356,000 . Liberals 2,769,000 National Liberals 1,565,000 Total ..-. 14,436,000 If the whole 615 seats were divided among the parties in proportion to these votes, the'result would be approximately as follows:—Conservatives, 244; Labour, 186; Liberals, 118 ; National Liberals, 67. But the result of the first 605 completed returns was as. follows:—Conservatives, 346, Labour, 141; Liberals, 62; National Liberals, 44 ; Various, 14. This substantial' majority in favour of the Government on which the Press is congratulating the country is shown by the aggregate voting to misrepresent the opinion of the electors. The Government, will have a majority of about 90 in the new House of Commons. If the electors had had their Way it would have been in a minority of more than 120.

A detailed comparison is just as interesting as the paradox of the general result. Assuming that the returns still to come will observe the same proportions between the parties "as those already completed, and dividing the unclassified members among the other parties in proportion to their aggregate votes, we arrive in round figures at the following comparison between the actual apportionment of seats in the new House and that which an exact reflection of the popular vote would have effected:— ProActual portfoßate Parties. strength, strength. Error. Conservatives 360 244 + 116 Labour 145 185 — 41 Liberals 65 118 —53 National Liberals .... 45 67—22 The Conservatives have thus secured nearly 50 per cent, more seats than they were entitled to on a proportionate basis, and this surplus 116 seats was won at the expense of' all the other parties, but especially of the Liberals, who, with nearly 20 per cent, of the popular vote, get little more than 10 per cent, of the seats. The Conservatives are, however, entitled-to an important set-off to the advantage which these figures ascribe to them. Having won more seats without a contest than any of the other parties, they are entitled to say that the constituencies which would have given them the best results are not covered by these returns.

But, after this discount has been allowed, the Government will still have about 100 more seats, and' its opponents about 100 less seats, than they would have respectively received from a representative apportionment. An appreciation of this fact would have very materially modified the complacent comment with which the victory of the Government has been hailed by the Conservative Press. The "Daily Mail," for instance, welcomes the decision of a "majority of the electors" in favour of a Government which has not promised too much, and'even attributes to "the electorate" as a whole the opinion that thecountry^has recently been overgoverned. Its comments would have been less impressive if a mathematical sub-editor had amended them to match the figures ■■ which show hpw tho oloefcors foully

by accuracy indicated in brackets, they would then have run as follows :

[A considerable section of) the electorate evidently feels that in recent years we have been over-governed, and [a 40 per cent, minority] of the voters turned with relief to a Prime Minister who is not promising too much, but who may be expected to avoid reckless expenditure abroad and unsettling experiments at home.

That diagnosis of. the result is generally satisfactory for Britain, and the Empire must not be allowed to conceal the fact that it has been arrived at not by representing the views of a majority of the electors but by over-riding them. From this point of view the swing of the pendulum about which we hear so much on these occasions looks a good deal more like the toss of the coin. Can a system which allows so much to chance be defended as a reasonable method for determining issues of the gravest possible concern to the nation? It may be that on this occasion chance has done better than the deliberate choice of the electors would have done if it had been accurately ascertained, but it would only be in accordance ' with the doctrine of chances if at the next great crisis in the affairs of the Empire the result went the other way. We must surely concede either that democracy is a failure, and that chance is a better guide than reason in the conduct of its affairs, or we must devise some method which will protect us from minority rule pretending to .be based, but not in fact based, on a majority vote.