THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1920. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.

Hawke's Bay Tribune, Volume X, Issue 20, 7 January 1920, Page 4

THE H.B. TRIBUNE. WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 7, 1920. ELECTORAL SYSTEMS.

We imagine that even our rather over-indignant Liberal friends will scarcely be able to repress a smile when they read our messages to-day from Australia. They have been very hot and resentful in their condemnation of the admittedly oldfashioned “first-past-the-post” system under which our own general election was held, and professedly confident, after the event, that under a preferential scheme the “anti-Reform” candidates would have secured a majority in the House. It can scarcely be, therefore, but the equally strong condemnation that Is now coming from Australia of the elaborate system of preferential voting adopted theie will come as a cooling breeze. It is to be noted as something of a paradox that the adverse criticism of this preferential system, tested for the first time in the recent election of the Commonwealth Senate, is coming from both Nationalists and Labourites. The latter, as the defeated party, are naturally loudest in their anathemas, claiming as our “anti-Reformers” claim, that under some other system they would have gained a substantially large number of seats. What the . NatioanlistS’ ground of protest may be we have yet to learn, but as they have secured an overwhelming majority in the Senate, it probably lies in some fear for the result of future contests. We have to confess to having but a vague understanding of the new ideas that have been applied in this recent election, having failed to note any exhaustive explanation of them at the time when they were being discussed. There Was, however, a very considerable amount of inappreciative press criticism at the time, and plenty of predictions that in practical application the system would fail .to achieve all that its sponsors claimed for it. But as this is only a customary phase of the introduction of anything novel into political life, no great notice was. taken of it. The forecast, however, seems to have had justification in the result of the first trial. This does not mean that the principle of preferential voting stands completely condemned, for we imagine that when the Australian system comes to be further analysed in the light of the election just past that it will be found that elaboration has been beyond the capacity of a great number of the electors to understand it. This conclusion has been reached through observing the almost daily instructions to voters which the press organs of both parties Were'giving for weeks prior to the event, both sides being evidently anxious lest their partisans would fail to make the most of their votes in the direction of assuring party victory. *The same deduction may also be drawn from the undue proportion of informal votes, indicating that a' very large percentage of the electors not only did not fully understand bow the order of their preference would operate, but also did not understand the mere mechanical method of expressing it on the voting papers. Surprise seems to be felt that four New South Wales candidates did not secure sufficient “primary,” that is “firstchoice,” votes to save them from forfeiting their deposits. But this is probably the natural outcome of the press “instructions” to voters to which we have referred, for these were veiy insistent in impressing voters with the need for concentrating primary votes upon three selected and named candidates, there being, of course, in each State only three senatorial seats to fill. As we have said, therefore, the apparent breakdown of this Australian system is not to be taken as anything like a final verdict. At the same time, it must not be overlooked that the Tasmanian system which has how been in operation for some three of four State elections has given anything but unqualified satisfaction. Looking to the Old World, too, we find strong adverse criticisms directed against the new methods adopted for the recent Belgian and Italian parliamentary elections. This, however, may merely mean that, while the principle is> fundamentally right, the proper system for applying it has not yet been evolved. Finally it is as well, also, to note that the Labour defeat was almost immediately followed by a suggestion of coalition with the other minority party, the Farmers’. Having regard to the widely varying platforms of these two parties, ana to the esteem in which Mr. Ryan, the new leader of the Federal Labour Party, must be held by the pastoralists. this could scarcely be looked upon as anything but an unholy alliance. However, the proposal seems to have been strangled at birth.