CORRESPONDENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 124, 21 November 1931, Page 12

CORRESPONDENCE

THE SPLIT VOTE

(To the Editor.)

Sir,—Your sub-leader, "Playing the Game," on Wednesday makes it clear that no- coalition or '"gentlemen's agreement in politics is likely to avoid the evils due to split votes. There are nearly 200 candidates for eighty seats. So the old trouble will continue. Why have not the United Party fulfilled their promise and introduced preferential voting? Why did not the Reform Party bi;ing in some such measure as promised when the obnoxious Second Ballot Act was repealed? At present we are represented' by the infinitesimal minority who find it politic to belong to local political associations. They select the candidates, whether good, bad, or only mediocre; we have to vote, for the party nominee of the party whose policy is nearest in our* opinion to what we consider sound. We even at times fool constrained to vote for a strong caudidale of another party because if we do not the split vote will enable the party which we least like to secure a seat.

It' there were some means of the elector indicating his vote for candidates in order of preference, there would be no need to ask candidates and prospective candidates to play the game and be loyal to the decisions of party leaders. There would then bo no bar to men of strong personality, ability, and courage of convictions standing for any seat as Independents, or as unofficial party candidates. We should then weed out some of the mediocrities from our political life, and have a wider scope for the choice of administrative talent for portfolios. It is surprising that the Press has not taken up this aspect. .As one perhaps rather poorly informed from the political point of view, but who has had experience of the benefit of preferential voting in smaller -fields,] should be glad to know what there is against it. —I am, etc.,

GENERAL ELECTOR

WELLINGTON NORTH

(To the Editor.)

fc'ir.—"Coalitionist," in last night's issue ol "The Post," says that.many electors do not know how to vote in. Wellington North, in view of the fact that there are two candidates standing as Coalitionists. Tt ."Coalitionist" is. sincere, he must realise that a, vote cast for the unofficial Coalition' candidate is tantamount to a vote for1- the Labour Party, and a vote a"ainst the Coalition Government. "I should like- to inform "Coalitionist" that the official Coalition candidate (Mr. G. A. Troup) some years back stood down in ail election contest, in favour of Sir John Luke, and it only seems fair now, apart from national reasons, that Coalitionist" should vote for the official Coalition candidate.—l am. etc.,

FAIR GO.

20th November. (To the Editor.)

Sir,—As" an elector in the electorate of Wellington North, I would like to have it explained why Sir John Luke has been passed over as official candidate, in a district in which he was the member for many years. Expediency is no excuse for injustice, and I for one refuse to be v party to such injusties.—l am, etc.,

ELECTOR, W.N

[We have received other letters of _ which those printed above are typical.—Ed.j

LITERATURE AND CRITICS

(To the Editor.)

Sir.— I feel so "beaten, bobbed, and thumped" by my critics in to-night's •'Post" that there is no kick left m_ me —in fact, my place is on the stool of repentance, or in the Pillory! A few veeks ago the author of "Life and Beauty" was represented, in the Press, as stating that "feeble attempts were made weekly, in the Wellington Press, at literary criticism!" Can it be matter for surprise, then, that the humbler local critics have been mi the tip-toe of expectation [ereeta expeetatione] for that masterpiece or model of ''creative" criticism, "Life and Beauty"? Why should the author, or his friends and admirers, resent -the feeble criticism of us Wellington criticasters? One of my. critics represents "Life and Beauty" as "original and creative writing!" Well, I do not clearly understand what is meant by "creative" in prose or in prose-style! I understand (or think I do) what is meant by. "creative" poetry —but "creative" prose—'well, what, exactly, is it? It is generally recognised (I think) that a good prose-style (in English) even in connection with subjects prompted by the urge for aesthetic selfexpression and "communication," consists of simple, clear, correct, impressive, and dignified—OL- shall I say beautiful?—diction, and that everything else depends on the thought, or the subject, with which tho diction is concerned; but, when I find sentences and passages in "Life and Beauty" so laboured into burnished or grandiose diction that no scholars or critics of my acquaintance can help me in determining their meaning, must I conclude tiiat our failure to understand is due not to obscurity or aesthetic euphuism in the diction, or in the_ thought, of the author, but to want of intelligence or of aesthetic discernment^-or perhaps to prenatal retardation!—in us Wellington critics and criticasters?

I am sorry to find that our good fneud and redoubtable critic, Mi1. Austin, was too indolent to consult Pliny regarding liis (Pliny's) .not my Latinity! Perhaps, when he has occasiou to draw upon his friend Apelles again, he will cite Pliny correctly and translate his Latin correctly.—l am, etc.,

DROP-KICK,

lSlh November