ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTING

Lyttelton Times, Volume CI, Issue 11929, 28 June 1899, Page 4

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY VOTING

It is-evident, .from the letters we- publish this morning, that Mr M’Nab did not-suc-ceed, Jnihe- address-he delivered in the. Art Gallery the other evening, in making his system, of absolute majority woting perfectly; , clear to the whole of his audience. On©-of ■our correspondents thinks it necessary to 1 explain that preferential votes transferred fromone candidate to another are-of exactly] the same value as primary votes in deter-’ mining 1 tli tv final choice of the-We--thought, that Mr M’Nab had explained the operation of'his Billfully enough, butwe . shall be very glad to publish any explanation that may seem necessary to a complete uni’ derstanding of the measure. It is,.of quite in keeping, with the principle of the representation of majorities that the-electorS who fail to secure the success of their~first choice should be competent to cast their, -vote for another candidate. Our second cor-* , respondent-seems to have failed entirely totgrasp the purport of jVIt M’Nab’s proposals*. He suggests that the elector, instead--ofdndi-eating, the order in which he prefers that candidates, should distribute a-certain-numH ber of votes among-them ini a flxed'propor'tion. In a case where ther© were-six candidates, for instance, he would be required ’-tS give six votes to his first preference, ftv® to. his second, four to his third, and, somoni down to his sixth. “ I should Hhe-to'-know, 11 our correspondent-says, ‘‘what-could.be v uigedj against this method of voting.” Well, ini

the first place it can be -urged’ that it would not secure the representation of majorities for which the reformers axe contending.. If five of the candidates belonged to ontf party and one to the other, it; is certain'that the latter, even if supported' by only a minority of the electors, would, lie returned. The splitting of votes-among the-candidateS of-the same “ colour” would go on as-mem.-' ly as ever, and the man who could get -a)' block vote of “sixes” from his friends-.and’ a distribution of the “ fives ” and- “fours. among the least popular of the other-can-* dates would be certain of election. It urged, too, that the determination of riba voting power of the electol by the>nmnbeh of the candidates would prevent- Mmigndng} sufficient emphasis to his prefemice. If Mr Rolleston, Mr Seddon. 1 and. Mr M Kenzio were candidates for Riccarton, the good Conservative elector would! fee# very much aggrieved by a regulation allowed him to give only three votes'to.MF Rolleston and compelled Mm to give-twa to the Premier or the Minister of. LandfW The scheme suggested by our correspondent is, indeed, a very clumsy imitation-of -MU

M’Nab’s proposal, without a single vadrajw] tage to recommend it. Thostotemmrtothati Mr M’Nab’s method of voting would.be-m-; compreFensible to the women-votersis.not very complimentary to thefemimneinteP; lect. Tim method is a good deal less: involved than labelling pote of janmor mmrk-: ing the family linen. All that the elector is required to do is to indicate liis. first preference, as he does,at-present, by leavmg'the;, name-of Ms favourite- candidateand then to signify Ms subsequent prefer-; ences by marking simple numerals against the names of the remaining candidates. Wa; should prefer ourselves to have all therpreferences indicated by numerals; but thid is a comparatively small matter, and that reform itself is of such vast importancc-to the mass of tli© people that wo hope nd difference of opinion about its details.-will prevent it being plaeed upon the Statute’ Book during the presenb-session-okPadia*, ■ ment.

THE “APPROPRIATED” POMGIL Captain Russeia must, surely have-beea 1 filling the role of (lie party wag, in the .temporary absence - of - • Mr.tScDbia:

iir the House of Representatives last night, when, he declared that the Government had “ appropriated the policy brought forward by the Opposition.” It be difficult to imagine a more extravagant absurdity. The Opposition has aljways Steadfastly refused to divulge its policy, and it was only last week, when speaking at Gore, that Mr Scobie Mackenzie ■frankly admitted that it had none to diynlge. ‘ If Captain Russell were taken seriously he would stand convicted of an unparalleled piece of political effrontery. We cannot recall a single feature of the “ appropriated” policy which he has not persistent-

ly opposed- The change in the incidence of taxation, the resumption of land for settlement, the cheap money scheme, the restoration of the railways to popular management', the encouragement of conciliation and arbitration, the old age pensions, and the protection of' Native lands from greedy speculators, to say nothing of a number of minor measures, were all bitterly resisted by the leader of the Opposition and his friends. When the Liberal policy was first announced, which must, according to the statement made in the House last night, have been only a few days after it bad been “ appropriated ” from the Conservatives, Captain Russell was the very loudest in its 'denunciation. He described it as “ fantastic humbug,” “ rotten to the core,” and “ a de-liberate-attempt to stir up class animosities.” This was curious language to apply to a policy of his own, oven though it had been *• appropriated ” by his opponents; but it is encouraging to find that he is no longer ashamed of Liberal measures. The very best word Captain Bussell can now say for his party, in jest or in earnest, is that it framed the policy which the Liberals are carrying into effect. If this were true, he would be open to the charge of having obstinately opposed reforms which he honestly considered to ho for the good of the country. [We preferto helieve, for his own credit, that the statement he made in the House last pigbt was not intended to be taken seriously.