The Hawera Star. MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1926. THE ELECTION PETITIONS

Hawera Star, Volume XLV, 15 March 1926, Page 4

The Hawera Star.

MONDAY, MARCH 15, 1926. THE ELECTION PETITIONS

Delivered every evening by 5 o clock in Haweia, Manaia, Normanby, Okaiawa, Elthain, Mangatoki, Kaponga, Alton, ilnrleyville, X’atea. -."iiveiicy, Mokoia, Whakamara, Ohangai, Meremere. Fraser Road and Ararata.

The even fashion in which the delayed election spoils have been divided by the findings of the court in the Westland and Lyttelton petitions is the happiest circumstance of the whole proceedings in connection with these two seats. One retiring member has been elected and one defeated; the returning officer’s decision was confirmed in one case and upset in the other; and each of' the contending parties adds one to its strength in the House. Fortune has favoured the court, for, although the integrity of its members never would be questioned, the necessity of finding for one party in both eases might have brought their office into disrepute with unthinking and biased critics. As things have turned out, the only difference in the benefits to Labour and the Nationalists is the difference between the two members returned. Here Labour probably has the advantage. At any rate, Mr McCombs means more to liis party than Mr Seddon does to his. The member for Lyttelton is one of the ablest statisticians in the House —practically the only one apart from the Hon W, Downie Stewart—and not many are better qualified to criticise financial legislation. Without Mr McCombs, the Labour Party in Parliament would have been sadly disorganised. Mr Seddon, on the other hand, while an educated and conscientious member, shows little promise of adding to the distinction of the family name. Apart from votes rejected because the electors who cast them were not eligible to vote in Westland .or Lyttelton, as the case may be, the petitions wore decided by the admission ns formal of ballot-papers marked with a cross opposite the name of one candidate. In this the court appears to have gone outside the strict letter of llic law to give credit to voters’ intentions, a procedure to which no exception may be taken. But the admission of cross-marked papers raises again a question to which we referred when the result of one of the magisterial recounts was announced shortly after the election. Those doctors who placed crosses opposite the names of the candidates of •their choice, did so, presumably, because that is the manner in which they have been accustomed to vote for members of local bodies. By failing to cross out the names of unwanted candidates on the parliamentary ballot-papers, they disregarded instructions; but the court has held that their intention was clear, and their votes have been allowed accordingly. This is only fair when it is remembered that the object of an election is to secure an expression of the wish of the people; but it seems absurd that, while the law sanctions two methods of voting, it does not provide . fully for overcoming the confusion which may result therefrom. On the one hand such provision is made, since returning officers in local body elections have instructions to allow ballot-papers which, while not strictly complying with the requirements, nevertheless indicate clearly what was the voter’s intention. Either some similar instruction should be issued for the guidance of parliamentary returning officers, or the law should 1?t amended to recognise only one method of marking papers in all public elections.