"NO MAGIC IN A WORD"

Evening Post, Volume CXL, Issue 80, 2 October 1945, Page 6

"NO MAGIC IN A WORD"

Sir, —In Saturday's "Post," "Thrifty," supported by the leading article, criticises the principle of "one man one vote" in connection with the country quota. Both writers indulge in abstract argument, but they should face up to the practical issue.

The country quota, instead of giving a 28 per cent, advantage to "country" electorates, actually gives over 90 per cent, advantage to 21 quota electorates and over 60 per cent, to 31 quota electorates (including the 21). In the last election, 166,453 voters in quota electorates elected 31 members, while 166,488 voters in non-quota electorates elected only 19 members. Also, quota electorates secured 21 members with the same number of votes as were required to return 19 members in nonquota electorates. Supporters of the quota will have to contend that electors in quota electorates have almost a two to one or else an eight to five superiority in "capacity and -judgment" over electors in nonquota electorates. That is the real test of the quota. "The Post" is not correct when it states that the "one-man-one-vote principle" assures complete equality in capacity and judg-. ment of voters. It does soundly hold that any average thousand voters in a non-quota electorate have- as much "capacity and judgment" as any thousand in a quota district. "Country quota" supporters have the -colossal task of trying to prove that a thousand voters in quota electorates have either a 90 per cent, (almost two votes to one) or a 60 per cent, superiority in political "capacity and judgment" over electors in non-quota electorates. —I am, etc., CRUX. Sir, —Your correspondent "Thrifty" in his diatribe against the principle "of government of the people, by the people, for the people," is merely expressing somewhat more bluntly and crudely sentiments which were uttered frequently by the late Adolf Hitler and his playmate Mussolini. "Thrifty" should hardly need to be reminded that millions of "the bulk of the people" whom he despises so heartily have died defending the world against this barbaric creed. In your editorial, Sir, sponsoring this outburst of native Fascism, you 'rather naively suggest that the views of "Thrifty" will be "unpopular with many people." Let me assure you, Sir, and your correspondent, that not only those ""who talk loudly of democracy," btu every New Zealander who believes in the principles of the "four freedoms" and in our proud heritage of democratic government, for which so many New Zealanders have died fighting, will resent strongly your attitude. Even were it true that only some of us are capable of using a vote wisely, I fail to see what defence can be made of the unequal, franchise created by the country quota. Why should twice as many people be represented by one M.P. in Remuera as in Egmont? I think no case can be made that the electors of Egmont are really twice as intelligent and responsible as the electors in any of the half-dozen electoral districts with double Egmont's population. No, Sir, I cannot swallow your reasoning, and in conclusion may I say that in the eyes of democratic people your editorial, "No Magic in a Word," will have seriously damaged the reputation of your paper.—l am, etc., OF THE PEOPLE. ["Thrifty" did not mention the country quota and "The Post" referred to it only in stating that legislative action for its abolition would probably be the occasion for eulogising "one man, one vote." To state our arguments, as bearing directly on the country quota issue, which "Crux" has read into them, is to mis-state them. Both "Thrifty" and "The Post" submitted that "one man one vote" did not give automatic justice and good government, and "Crux" has not shown the submissions to be wrong. Without discussing, and certainly without accepting, "Crux's" calculations and deductions, we may state (as "Crux" has raised the question) that our clearly-expressed view on the country quota is that a Government has no authority to initiate legislation on an issue of this kind unless it has given clear warning of its intentions at the elections, so that electors might discuss the matter. To alter without warning the rules by which a Government is returned after it has been returned is wholly contrary to demoJ cratic procedure and principles.

"Of the People" adopts the old and crude device of condemning as "Fascism" opinions to which he objects —a device popular years ago when the terms of condemnation were "Toryism" (still in use) and, on the other extreme, "Bolshevism." As we cannot see the "Fascism," and as we quoted neither Hitler nor Mussolini, but did quote Plato and the late Archbishop of Canterbury (non-Fascists), and as, moreover, "Of the People" may have read but has certainly not understood our article, it would be waste of space to pursue the argument.—Ed.]