MAYOR AND COUNCIL

Evening Post, Volume CXI, Issue 112, 14 May 1931, Page 13

MAYOR AND COUNCIL

THE FIXAL FIGUEES

NO GREAT CHANGES

MR. BENNETT TOPS POLL

The official recount of the votes polled at the Mayoral and City Council election was completed lust evening, and tho formal declaration was accordingly made by the Returning Officer (Mr. B. Tait). The checked figures are:— ■ MAYORALTY.

The installation ceremony will take place in..the■•Council Chamber,, next week, probably-on-Wednesday. ALL THE FIGURES ALTERED. » All. the figures .of the : preliminary count underwent some alteration^ chiefly as a result of the addition of declaratory votes and.by the allowaaice or disallowance of votes put aside by deputies as-informal or .doubtful informal votes. .'- Mr.- Hislop's majority has ' been increased to 1!)15. :••.■■.-■ The only .-changes calling for note in .the council election aro that Mr.i W.H. Bennett is now at the head of the. poll, with Mr. ..W.' Appleton in second place, and that, Mr. Scmple and, Mr. M'Kecii have, changed: places, being, seventh, and .eighth, respectively.' among, the elected councillors.,'/,, .. '- It-will .'be.'noted, 'that apart from Messrs.-Chapman, Scmple, and- M'Keen, the' Labour candidates aregroivped well: together, from seven .thousand. votes down;' which may,, or may. not, according, to the enthusiasm of the viewer, suggest that the value of the .block' Labour vote in al municipal election is round about six, or ■ seven: thousand votes. -~'... '.'-.. VALUABLE SERVICES LOST. There is -general, regret among councillors as well-'.'as among;' the public, that Mr. Luckie, is no longer.a memberpf :the City Council* for; he has given, very long and valuable service'to the city. There is an impression that a candidate f or, tlio Mayoralty (cannot at: the same time , contest a 1 seat at the council table, but that is not sor, thereis no. bar against a double candidature, .except. that .it is not'generally done. Had the majority ,vote ; - gone to Mr. Luckic on the Mayoral issue, the city would have, lost the v.services of Mrl. Hislop just as completely.. Of course, should only one of the Mayoral, candidate's offer himself ;as■, a' council candidate complications might;, follow, and a by-election become, necessary, but if both MayoraT candidates stood for the council this likelihoqd w.cfuld bo "avoid- s ed, and the' services of two good and experienced men would be practically assured. -\ ■ :-'" : .- , ■ ■■.'.. "-. : '.' .■ TOO MANY DISCARD VOTES. Mention was made yesterday, of the very large ■ number of informal ballot papers, the votes 'being in most cases disallowed because the voters found difficulty in crossing out a sufficient number of unwanted names. , No less tl(an ; 17 per cent, of the council ballot papers were ruled out as informal. This, figure is regarded as 'being'11 far top high, a.nd as the strongest argument for aireconsideratiori of the method of marking the papers. It is argued that not only ,would the old positive system of placing crosses alongside preferred candidates' names make it easier",for voters,- but also that that, system is much,more convenient from the returning officers point of view,, and thai; results can be determined much more rapidly. The. striking out of names, also very often leads to doubt, in case's where the pen: oil marks run across the ballot papers diagonally and so affect tw,o names. ; EFFECTIVE VOTE REDUCED. In the Mayoral issue informal votes •amounted to just over 2 per cent., which is also high in such a simple issue. Looking at the figures in another way, one finds that very largely as a result of the large number Vof informal votes, the average effectiveness of ballot papers in the council election was only in respect of 11.08 candidates, instead of 15 required. Many people did not vote for the full' 15—some because they crossed out too'many names by mistake —but there is no doubt that the many informal ballot papers reduced considerably the effectiveness ,of the average vote. ..■■■■ There is also the very important aspect of whether the whole system has not become too cumbersome in that the average voter cannot possibly know, perhaps even know of, all the 4 candidates. ■■•■■-.,.

Hislop, T. C. A 13,593 Luekic, M - H,678 Informal 528 Majority for Hislop ...... 1,915 CITY COUNCIL. Bennett, W. H. 12,766 Applctori. W. 12,453 Gauclin. W. J 12,425 Chapman. C. .H. -: 11,452 Forsytlj./T. ............. .11,290 Huggins, H. A. K. 10.576. r Sample, E. 10,395 I M'Kcen, E. ............'.' 10,332 M' Eldowney,. J; ....;.... 9,966 Moaclowcroft, F. - 9,808 Burns. J. i. . .. 0,514 Duncan, W 9,282 Ho1n),'S.. '..•'.. 8,852 Wnll.-ifio, J. N 8,480 M' Donald, .T. ........: .;. 8,351 (The 1 above arc elected.) '. Mitchell, G. .:.......... 8,lS(i Hoskius, P.- D. .; 7,704 Sl:ewar£, G. L. ..:..;...:. 7,343 ■'Pfico, H. H. ../...;..;.. 7.304 Atkinson, \V. ........ 7.029 Siovwright, ,T. D. ..:..... (5,890 Bothamloy, E. W.!.......'. 6,S29 Eca'd, J. 1 .............I.. 6,(332 Brindle; T. .............. 6,624 Parlane, A.: ...........\ . 6,548 Collins, J. H. ......'...... 6,511 . Butler, P.M.... 6,390 Kane,; Amy G. ....... 6,287 . Walsh, .M. ...;.......... 6,252 ;Hennessey, L. ............ 6,206 : Thome, J. ............... 5,956' Martin, S. T. S. ..':■..';......., 5,841- • M' Vicar,, AnniG ■...».'..... 5,556 Sno\r, Sarah .:. 5,316 Leth'aby, C. F. ............... 4,831. Informal .... ._* ..,•••' ;M 86