MEMBERS AND VOTES

Evening Post, Volume CVI, Issue 121, 27 November 1928, Page 8

MEMBERS AND VOTES

In taking account of the votes cast for parties in the General Election it is not wise to form hard-and-fast conclusions. In New Zealand party feeling has not tho power that it holds in the United Kingdom. The BallanceSeddon Liberal tradition, though it has an influence, cannot compare with the Gladstone tradition of England. Tho scarlet-coated sentry of "lolanthe" thought it comical That every boy and every gal That's born into this world alivo Is either a little Liberal Or else a little Conservative. Had tho sentry been able to look into tho polling booths of Now Zealand he would have seen something more reasonable, though loss comical —voters who were bom little Liberals or little Con- - servatives departing from tho family custom and-voting as they pleased, and espociafly as tho particular candidates pleased .them. This cannot bo overlooked in assessing party voting strengths. A strong Reformer, .or United or Labour, may win any seat. No constituency is leased in perpetuity to any party. Nevertheless, tho analysis of votes which, is sot out in our news columns is decidedly interesting. It shows that Reform and Independent Reform v (75 candidates) . polled 267,457 votes and won 27 seats; United, Independent United, LiberalLabour, and Independent Liberal (60), polled 225,066 votes and won 27 scats, to which should bo added a large proportion of the 31,849 votes polled by eleven Independents, who won five seats, as four of tho successful members will support Sir Joseph Ward on a want-of-confidenco motion. Labour, with 55 candidates, polled 198,353 votes, and to this may bo added tho 2327 votes cast for five Independent Labour candidates. Labour won 19 seats. A rough division gives Reform one member for each 9906 votes, United one for 8076, and Labour ono for 10,563. Of course this should bo qualified in a measure by allowing for the number of seats contested. This is not so much out of proportion as under the voting of 1925; but it still reveals an entirely unscientific allocation of representation on party strength. Moreover, tho result disposes of tho good stand-by argument of opponents of scientific representation systems. They have boon wont to say: "Well, if the system is not strictly fair and is often uncertain, in at least gives stability. We do not have all this subdivision of parties and representation of minorities which makes government so difficult. Tho dominant party usually has a majority which enables it-to carry on." We do. not deny the practical force of the argument. Chesterton has said that if a fire breaks out it is better for tho least intelligent member of the household to call the fire brigade at once than for the more intelligent to waste time debating who shall give the alarm. Similarly in government it is better to have action taken by some party (though it may not always be the most capable) than to have work suspended by helpless division in a superior assembly. First-past-the-post has failed, however, to give us a dominant party. Tho. argument of expediency on this occasion has no weight. There is another point to be regarded. The election cannot -be considered the final judgment of the people upon the party policies. It is anything but final. The personal qualifications of candidates have boon a factor of great importance. It is shown that it is not enough for a party to have a sound policy and an able leader. There must bo candidates capable of expounding that policy and supporting the leader. This is a matter which touches those people who have been content hitherto |to stand off and criticise. They may

recognise now that their personal interest is necessary if the principles which thoy support arc to govern tlio policy oi' the Dominion. A strong leader, a'sound policy, and capable Candida ten —all throe are essential —and if one of the three is lacking tlio possession of the other two may prove unavailing.