SINGLE MEMBER ELECTORATES

Evening Star, Issue 19198, 15 March 1926, Page 9

SINGLE MEMBER ELECTORATES

ABSURDITIES AND ANOMALIES “ FAITHLESS POLITICIANS.” In an interview after tiro Electoral Court had delivered its judgment, Mr [>. J ,o’llogan, lending counsel for Mr M'Combs, remarked that the case afforded one more illustration of the absurdities and anomalies inseparable from the present system of single-mem-ber electorates. “ Once every five years—that is to say, after every census—the. electoral boundaries arc fixed by several officials sitting in an office,” said Mr O’Pcgan. “Of course, I am not attacking individuals (who are charged with the administration) for nn indefensible blundering and unscientific system, but is it not ridiculous to have electoral boundaries fixed every five years without reference to the wishes of the people, without their knowledge, and solely pursuant to the mechanical procedure ordained hy statute? One of the many advantages of Proportional Representation would bo that wo would necessarily have plural number electorates. Five electorates could be grouped into one, and ns no candidate would require to poll a majority, every considerable section of opinion would bo assured of representation. Voters would bo afforded a choice of candidates, electoral boundaries would necessarily bo physical features, such as rivers, etc., and as they would bo altered less frequently they would become known to everybody concerned, 'file single-member electorate is anomalous and indefensible, especially having regard to the fact that wo have long since discarded it for municipal elections. The real trouble is the machine politicians. They hate independent opinion, and they hate Proportional Representation, because independent men could not be denied their proper place in public life. In this country the movement for electoral reform has been shamefully betrayed by the men who, when in Opposition, professed to be its friends; but time will bring its revenge hereafter. Wo shall sec the present Government, which, by tho way, docs not represent n majority of the people of Nmv Zealand, defeated by the single-member electorate —indeed, it would bo a just retribution if they lost Eden by-elec-tion in consequence. Anyhow, I have nn abiding faith in tho triumph of truth, and refuse to believe that New Zealand will ho ruled indefinitely by faithless and insincere politicians.” PARTY STRENGTH LABOR’S CLAIM TO BE OFFICIAL OPPOSITION A definite claim hy the Labor Party to bo regarded as the official Opposition in the House will bo made now that Mr M'Combs has been elected for the Lyttelton sent. Mr I), G. Sullivn.ii, M.P., one of the. party whips, stated to-day that lie was quite satisfied that, Labor was entitled to bo the official Opposition .because Mr Atmore (member for Nelson) mid Sir Joseph Ward (member for Invercargill) could not bo regarded ns Nationalists. Mr Atmore had declared himself an Independent during the last session, and Sir Joseph Ward had never described himself as anything hut a Liberal.