NOT A LIGHT POLL

Evening Post, Volume CXV, Issue 120, 24 May 1933, Page 10

NOT A LIGHT POLL

COUNCIL ELECTIONS

FIRST IMPRESSIONS ASTRAY

SOME CONTRADICTIONS

Some rather surprising facts emerge from an examination, of figures for the last municipal elections, showing that first impressions can go well astray, Notwithstanding the old saying. In the first place it was widely stated and generally accepted, even by those directly concerned, that the poll was a regrettably light one, in fact, so light that the electors deserved a thorough talking to for failing to do their duty. Actually the voting was fully equal to the; average at elections for years past, but that could not be ascertained until a special check had been made of a master roll in the courso of the scrutiny for plural voting and other irregularities. This check was made by writing the numbers Against the names of voters at the many booths on small squares of paper, sorting them into numerical order, and then checking them oft against a singlo roll, simple enough, but very laborious. , The number of people who turned out to .vote this year was 24,790. The number of electors on the main roll was 49,300, and on the supplementary roll 4853, a total of 54,153. There certainly is apathy—a Word so popular about election time that' eventually it may secure a special meaning of its owll —but there is also surprise when comparisons are made with' the numbers, of votes recorded at previous .elections, when added to the pity Council, Hospital Board, and. Harbour Board elections was the much greater interest of mayoral elections. The comparisons I are:— ' . ■ ■- ■ . . 1925 ............V.. "24,931 * 1927 ............. 23,053 , 1929 .............. 23,884 ■ 1931 25,799 1933 .............. 24,790 . The 1925'- election had unusual interest on account of the Mayoral con-' test between Mr. C. J. B. Norwood and Mr. C. H. : Chapman, and the polling in 1927, wheri Mr. Chapman polled a very heavy vote (not heavy enough to win) against Mr. G. A. Troup, was regarded as quite heavy: yet this year the figure was beaten: The 1931 election had more than the usual interest in the contest between Mr. T. C. A. Hislop and. Mr. M. F. Luckie, and that extra enthusiasm, brought in just' . over a thousand more votes than this year. THE TWO BOLLS. . Thero is another surprise in the analysis of main and supplementary roll votes. As the supplementary roll is built up in the last few weeks before the poll it might reasonably be thought that those whose names appeared upon it had applied for enrolment "because they were really keen to vote, but. not so, on the figures for this year. Of the 4853 electors so "enrollexT only 2718, or 56 per cent, voted. Of the 49,300 electors on the main roll, 21,045 voted, 42 per cent., and though this percentage is considerably lower, it is high when it is taken into account that the main roll, not properly purged for years, is padded with thousands of names which should not be there: On the two rolls the percentage of electors exercising their votes was 44 per cent., not counting the 1027 who endeavoured to vote by declaration (actually only about CO such votes were allowed). THOSE WHO COULD HOT VOTE COKBECTLY. And on still another point first impressions went altogether astray. Much was said about informal votes: that th»re were far too many of them (as j there were), that something would have , to be done to educate electors or to change the system of marking ballot papers, and so on, but actually (taking the votes cast in the City Council elections as the basis) there were fewer informal votes this year than for many years past. The comparisons are::—

Far' from this year exhibiting an unusual, stupidity,, then, the electors of Wellington did very well—but still not nearly well enough, for if voters exercised just plain common sense there is really no reason why there ■ should be any informal voting at all.

1925 1927 1929 1931 1933 ........... Not available ,.« 2700 4047 ' ..4486 2407 ■" .