ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.

Evening Star, Issue 18020, 14 July 1922, Page 4

ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.

Mr Isitt contributed to the gaiety of the House on Wednesday by his failure to give the name of one present-day British statesman who is a believer in Proportional Representation. Three successive attempts were made by him to cite the name of a living supporter of the system, only to be told that the upholder whom he named was dead. Mr Isitt’s embarrassment was tho fault of his own ignorance, and not of the system which he advocated so badly. Mr Isitt is a man of more knowledge, probably, than the average parliamentarian, but the want of knowledge which was betrayed by him on this occasion might have given point to Professor Goode’s reproach against Now Zealanders ; that their knowledge and their interests tend to ho too sharply limited to what happens in their own part of the world. If the interests of the member for Christchurch North had been wider, he might have quoted many names of British leaders of opinion, including members of the British Government, who are convinced supporters of Proportional Representation. Lord Birkenhead, Lord Milner, Mr Asquith, Lord Robert Cecil, Mr Amery, Sir Alfred Mond, Earl Selborne, Sir John Simon, Mr Clynes, and Mr Thomas will suffice for present purposes. Even that list is enough to stamp Mr Massey’s reference, made in tho House last week, to an “idiotic” system as an utterance irresponsible in tho last degree. The system is, indeed, Mr Massey’s own, to the extent that, by an Act passed in accordance with his party’s policy, he stands pledged to “ try it on the dog,” in tho shape of the Legislative Council. The trial has been defererd for an unconscionable time, but that does not affect Reform’s commitment to it.

It is less certain that Proportional Representation promises the best system for New Zealand’s electoral needs. Opinion has been sharply divided in other countries, alike on its theory and its working. The British * Spectator ’ and the ‘ Nation,’ which might bo thought to have no other belief in common, both demand it. The ‘New Statesman,’ which is as Radical as the ‘ Nation,’ has devoted pages to show that it is one of the greatest delusions of modern times. It forms part of both the Irish Constitutions. It seems to have worked well in the Free State, so far as it was given a chance to work, but already there is a movement in Ulster to got rid of it. It was abused grossly by the election riggers at the last elections in New South Wales. A special obstacle to the introduction of it in this country is the difficulty of preserving the country quota, which allows a country member to be elected by fewer votes than those in the towns, in view of the smaller proportion of country electors who are able to get to polls. Mr Wilford has declared that the country quota can bo reconciled with

Proportional Representation; but he did not show how it could bo done, and it was by his repetition of this omission that Mr Isitt did the worst service to his reform. Those who plead for the adoption of a how electoral system should bo ready to prepare their case with much more thoroughness than has been shown by tho Liberals' in this instance. Dir Massey’s argument against Proportional Representation, used in tho House yesterday, that a minority Government was returned under it when it was first applied in 1920 in New South Wales, does not go very far. No more could be asked of a system than that it should give tho precise number of members duo to them to all parties. Tho genuine arguments against Proportional Representation are so many, and appear so formidable, however, as to suggest real reason for considering whether some system which provided for a preferential vote in single member electorates would not bo more suited to New Zealand’s needs. It is certain that tho system now obtaining can be not much more than a travesty.