SELECTING CANDIDATES

Evening Post, Volume CV, Issue 23, 27 January 1923, Page 8

SELECTING CANDIDATES

KEEPING MINORITY LABOUR OUT

PREFERENTIAL VOTING URGED

'.With the approaching contest for the Mayoralty and the possibility of there being several candidates, some quarters are considering the question of how best to keep a Labour nominee out •of the office. Jt is generally felt that if there are three or four candidates in the field the position of Mayor of the city will become as a gift to Labour,. and when th© finances of the Corporation are in such a position as to require the most careful conservation, this situation is held to_ be. rather disquieting. "Put Labour in and you will see 1 how the rates .will soar," stated a member of the City Council this week. This_is the feeling among many ratepayers, who are not anxious to have their rates- increased by the adoption of schemes which would entail the absorption of a great deal of money. " • ■

In City Council circles there are those who consider that the Mayor, be. elected by some, system of preferential voting in order to avoid the risks attendant when a number of candidates enter the lists. It is thought' that by such a system there would be very little chance of Labour being able to-put its nominee into the Mayoral chair. Failing a change in the_ voting system, it is suggested that the time has arrived .when the City Councillors themselves should choose who should be their chairman, 1 or Mayor. This would enable the council itself to exercise more control over, the affairs of the city and administrative matters gener-. ally than its possible at tiie present time. As things now stand the Mayoral office is by no means nominal, for the Mayor is able to exercise certain authority) apart altogether from the views of the council it3elf. Consequently, if a Labour Mayor were in office and had sitting with hiin_ a council, a majority of whom were entirely, opposed to Labour methods and policy, it is contended ■ that the situation would not be at all satisfactory from the councillors' point of view, and friction ■would not infrequently arise. The law at present contains no provision for electing the Mayor by a preferential voting system, although it is possible k) select a municipal council by means of proportional representation; which is a different tiling. For- a posftion such as that of. Mayor, which can be held by only Ona person, the only effective change frora the present system of election is saiii^o be that under which the electors could record their preferences, according to their opinions, of the respective candidates. The Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Act, 1914, and its amendments of 1915 have no reference to the election of the Mayor, but only to the election of the councillors. The decision to conduct the voting on the proportional representation system must be made three clear months before the date of the poll. A clause in the Act states: "The council of an undivided borough may,, by special order, adopt the provisions of this Act with respect to all general elections of councillors held after three months from the making of the order." The special order must be passed at a special meeting of the council, and confirmed at a meeting not. sooner than twenty-eight days afterwards. A precedent for the election of councillors under this portion of the Act of 1914 occurred in 1917, when' the Christchurch municipal election was conducted under the. proportional system. Labour holds that all local bodies, as ■ well as Parliament, should be elected by proportional representation, but under what system 'Labour would appoint a Mayor does not appear to be clear.