PREFERENTIAL VOTING.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVI, Issue 12557, 19 July 1901, Page 4

PREFERENTIAL VOTING.

Although we -do not agree with Mr Charles Taylor that the result would 1 'have been different if a system of preferential voting had been in operation ait the election yesterday, we cheerfully admit that the polling furnishes a very good illustration of one of the defects of our present method of exercising the franchise. Mr Smith, the successful candidate, goes to swell the number of minority representatives in the House, only 3933 votes having been recorded in his favour, while 5795 were cast against him. ' This means, of course, that a largo majority of the electors who went to the poll were opposed 1 to the candidate who was actually returned'. The same result was seen in quite a number of contests at the lalst general ejection, Messrs Collins, Lewis and' Ell, the members for Christchurch, Mr Hardy, the member for Rakaia, and Mr M’Lachlan, the member for Ashburton, being among the successful candidates who failed 1 to secure a majority of the votes polled in their constituency. It is to prevent this sort of thing, and to secure what wo sometimes imagine we have at present, majority representation, that Mr M’Nab has introduced' bis Bill providing fox preferential voting. The system has been explained' eo often that it is probably, understood! by most of our readers. If it had been in operation at yesterday’s .poll the electors, after recording their votes for the candidate they wished to see returned, would have indicated on their ballot papers which of the other candidates they preferred. Mr Turnbull's supporters, for instance, would! have expressed a preference for either Mr Smith or Mr Taylor, and on their first vote failing to achieve its object their second would have been awarded to the candidate for whom it whs intended. In. this way the 23T7 electors who voted for Mr Turnbull would have had a voice in determining the contest between the other two candidates. If 1500 of them had given their “second preference” to Mr Taylor, and! ouly 877 had given theirs to Mr Smith, the former gentleman would have been returned by a majority of 108. That the system is not quite perfect is evident when we remember that the whole of the “ second preferences ” on Mr Smith’s and l Mr Taylor's ballotpapers, which would never have been counted, might have been awarded to Mr Turnbull. To overcome this difficulty one of our correspondents has suggested that first and second preference should be given » definite value, the first, say, counting as two votes and the second as one, but this would give rise to fresh complications, and? in the end would' be even more unsatisfactory than the existing system. Sir M’Nab’s proposal, on the other hand', is simple and practicable, and if .-it does not absolutely ensure the representation of majorities it is at least a vast improvement upon the present clumsy method of voting.