TOO MANY MISTAKES

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 108, 10 May 1933, Page 10

TOO MANY MISTAKES

MASKING OF PAPERS

WHERE VOTERS WENT WRONG

AUCKLAND'S NEW SYSTEM

The announcement that the number of informal votes in the City Council election had increased from 2148 on the first count to 2407 on the final count has caused a good deal; of surprise, for as a rule quite a fair proportion of the ballot papers put aside during the first rushed count for further examination are found to be sufficiently clear to be acceptable. That was so to some extent this year, .but this small number %vas completely swamped by the discards of ballot papers passed as valid in tht first count. ,: : J ■ ■ It appears from- the remarks of scrutineers that by far the larger proportion of these rejected ballot papers were marked by electors intending to vote anti-Labour. Evidently, "The Post" reporter was told, a great many voters were determined to see one or more of the best-known Independents (Councillors ; Burns, Huggins, and Meadowcroft,, who were lpft off the Civic League and Ratepayers' ticket) returned to office, and after they had made sure of their names they went' ahead and voted a full, or nearly full, non-Labour ticket besides. ..'■..-,■ .."A good two thousand of the 2407 informal votes were thrown out because they had sixteen or more names left on them," said one .of the scrutineers. . . - ' . There were some real puzzles as.to what voters meant by the-variety of methods adopted of marking papers, and these. were solved or the: votes were disallowed by the Returning Officer, in consultation with \the scrutineers, but in cases where too many names were left-on the ballot papers there was only one thing to do—such papers were discarded at once. It is understood that one case of apparent plural voting is to be investigated. FEW INFORMALS AT AUCKLAND. Auckland must be smiling at Wellington's load total of informal votes, for voters in that city, using the crossmarking system (crosses against the names of favoured candidates), made very few mistakes. . . In the mayoral election (two candidates) there were 224 informal votes, representing 1.03 per cent., the lowest for ten years. There are 21 councillors in Auckland, as compared with only fifteen here, and therefore Auckland electors had a considerably more difficult vote to cast than had Wellington electors, and yet there were only 400 informal, council votes in Auckland, less than one-sixth of the number here. This Auckland figure represents: 1.8 per cent, of the, total votes cast (21,603 votes'were cast in the mayoral election)^ as compared with 7 per cent, in the 1931 municipal election at Auckland, when the striking out system was followed. ■ . There were eight candidates for the four city seats on the Auckland Harbour Board. There were 551 informal votes cast in this election, representing 2i per cent, of the total votes spoiled, as against 3.55 per cent, two years ago, I 6.26 per cent, in 1929, and 6.75 in 1927. This result, too, is attributed ': to the simpler form of voting introduced under the cross system used-at the election this year. ~ . ■„ "It is not possible to arrive-., at the total number of votes cast ill Wellington, for there were no- straight-out issues to give this indication, the loans issues being voted upon by ratepayers only, but it is clear that Wellington's percentage of informal votes was unduly, almost absurdly, high.