King Country Chronicle Thursday, Jnne 5, 1919 ELECTORAL REFORM.

King Country Chronicle, Volume XII, Issue 1220, 5 June 1919, Page 4

King Country Chronicle Thursday, Jnne 5, 1919 ELECTORAL REFORM.

• Gradually the electors are coming to realise that the electoral methods prevailing; in the Dominion are quite out of date. Last week evidence of this fact came from two quarters. In Wellington the Farmers' Union Cooference decided to support the demand for the adoption of a system known as preferential voting, and the Auckland Provincial Conference decided "to obtain information on tbe different pyatems of voting," and to embody tbe results in a leaflet. This is a step in tbe right direction, and the Auckland executive has an opportunity to produce, in popular form, a document that should be of great educational value. Tbe perfect electoral system should do two things: ensure the right of tbe majority to rule, and tbe right of tbe minority to be beard. Our present system does neither. The man who tops the poll is declared elected, despite tbe fact that he may represent only a minority of the electors. For instance, in an electorate there are three candidates. Of 4000 votes cast, Mr One received 1500, Mr Two 1450, and Mr Three 1060. Under our present system Mr One is delared duly elected, despite tbe fact tbat 2600 people preferred someone else. Mr One is a minority representative, and tbe same result only has to occur in a sufficient number of electorates and a party, representing a distinct minority of tbe electors, comes into power. This is an obvious weakness in the system, and it was with tbe intention of obviating the difficulty that the Liberal Party years ago introduced tbe cumbersome method of the Second Ballot. Tbat did ensure majority rule in tbe electorate, although it failed to provide for tbe right of tbe minority to be beard.

The preferential system may not be bo thorough as that known as proportional representation, but it is a distinct advance on the one now in rise. It does not impose any heavy task upon the elector. He would simply catalogue the candidates in the order in which he favoured them, patting his first choice, two against his second, and so on. The first preferences are counted and if no candidate has Becured a clear majority of the votes cast, the votes of the lowest candidate are taken, and the second preferences counted and added to the votes recorded for his opponents. The result may give a candidate the required majority, but if not then the process is continued until the majority is secured. In the illubtration given above it may happen that when tbe votes given for Mr Three were divided, in accordance with the second preferences, Mr Two would get 750 votes and Mr One only 300. The result would be the election of Mc Two, who would have received a clear majority of the votes cast. The candidate so elected would more nearly represent the wishes of a majority of the electors than Mr One cculd claim to do, but under our antiquated system Mr One would be returned Proportional representation would necessitate the formation of large electorates, each returning so many members. This would be a very radical alteration of our electoral system, and the country is not ready for that yet. Preferential voting, on the other hand, would not necessitate any alteration of the present constituencies, while it would prevent the wretched conditions that prevail to-day. Electoral reforms are sorely needed, and it is to be hoped that the decisions already referred to will hasten tbe day when they will be introduced.