DANGER IN NOT VOTING

Evening Post, Volume CXXV, Issue 108, 10 May 1938, Page 10

DANGER IN NOT VOTING

: Tomorrow the citizens of Welling--1 ton and its adjoining boroughs, to- : getlier, of course, with citizens similarly placed throughout New ! Zealand, will have the opportunity, and also the duty, of electing members for the various bodies which administer their local affairs. The election is for a term of three years. This, therefore, will be the only occasion, apart from by-elections, when the citizen can cxcrcisc direct control over policies that will affect his future during the term of office of the bodies he elects. The election, so far as Wellington City is con-j cerned, is for the Mayoralty, for which there are two candidates; the City Council, 32 candidates, 15 to be elected; the Hospital Board, 27 candidates for 13 seats, and the Harbour Board, B'candidates for 4 seats. To the elector, faced with the long list of names of candidates from which to select a series nearly half as long, the task at local body elections has always been onerous and, perhaps, rather confusing, compared with the simplicity of choice at Parliamentary elections. Normally, the choice at local body elections would, be like picking a representative team for games, the only criterion being past performance irrespective of any other consideration, the best men for the job. Unfortunately, as we have pointed out more than once ' and specially emphasised yesterday, the circumstances this year are not normal, and measures as well as men must be considered by citizens in recording their votes. The issues of tomorrow's elections have become associated with party politics. These issues are not presented to the elector separately as in a plebiscite or referendum. The elector has not to vote "Yes" or "No" on these issues directly; he can express his opinion on the issues put before him in the electoral campaign 'only by voting for or against candidates according to the attitude they have taken up on such issues. This attitude has been clearly enough defined during the campaign. The candidates appear in more or less homogeneous groups included under the two "tickets" — Labour and Citizens. The issues— hqusing with the Mayoralty and City Council, hospital expansion with the Hospital Board, and waterfront control with the Harbour Bolard—are but salient points in a broad divergence of policy corresponding to the difference in national politics. No matter how much this intrusion of general party politics may be deplored, it is a fact with which the elector must reckon. It is this that lends such extraordinary importance to tomorrow's elections and imposes a special duty on the elector of making sure that his vote, after full consideration of all the circumstances, is recorded in the right direction. Candidates on the Citizens ticket stand for a continuance of the methods and policies which haye succeeded so well in the past in ! -jutting our local institutions on a sound footing. The policy advoI cated by Labour in the national ' sphere and to which all municipal Labour candidates are committed represents a venture into- the unknown. It is for the men and women of the community who have the vote to decide and to select the candidates who will carry out the policy they desire. One point must be emphasised j finally. The danger lies, not so much in the possibility of acceptance of the" Labour policy, but in failure, through apathy, to reject it. Supporters of Socialism will vote solidly and certainly. Those who do not support it must vote also. If they ; fail to vote they will help Labour; not so much perhaps as if they cast their votes for the Labour ticket, but yet enough to turn the scale. The only way to support the Citizens' safe policy is to vote for it.