ABSOLUTE MAJORITY BILL.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CVII, Issue 12850, 24 June 1902, Page 6

ABSOLUTE MAJORITY BILL.

TO THE EDITOB. J Sir,—Fair Vplay I expect from an hon-, curable opponent. I believe you to be-, such. You'misrepresent, no doubt because j you misunderstand me; but you misrepre-; sent me, nevertheless, when'jrou. state that/ I want the Independent, Liberal with 300 votes to secure the seat against the Conservative with 500 votes. I contended {for nothing so absurd.- My contention was, that as there were 700 out of .1200 who preferred "the Independent Liberal to the Conservative, he ought to be returned, j Mark, 700, not 300. In the illustration, I gave, 400 Seddon Liberals and 300 antiGovernment Independent Liberals, voted for tho Independent Liberal against the Conservative. You again'misrepresent me, when you insinuate that I wanted the Independent Liberal returned because I personally preferred him to the Conservative. I never stated my 'preference, -much less urged/it as a reason for the return of any particular candidate. To maintain that a majority of \ Government Oppositionists should decide the issue, Independent Liberal versus Conservative, is untenable, because such a majority is not a majority of the whole of the electors. Our MH.R.'s are elected to represent a majority of the electors, not a majority of any particular section, therefore, a majority of the electors should decide every issue. You selected two very extreme cases, and challenged me to show how Mr McNabs system could possibly be wrong when applied to them, I did so, and now you. complain that the Conservatives failing to get their first choice in, voted to keep their most formidable opponent out of Parliament. How very very wicked of the Conservatives, and how haughty of me to allow their votes to be counted. Because the Conservatives vote for reasons you do not approve, is that any reason why their votes should not be counted? If a majority prefer a candidate to j another, because he is not so strong to do either good or harm, or for any other reason, or,for no reason at all, his: vote ought to be counted, unless you are going to introduce quite a new principle, and require of every elector an adequate andi valid reason for voting as he does. Shall we import the necessary censors from Russia? Then, again, are the supporters of the last defeated candidate the only ones that have not sound reasons for voting, that they should be deprived of a second choice? The principle involved in my proposition is one that is recognised as sound in the practice of all well-regulated meetings and assemblies throughout the world. The principle is so universal andi well recognised that it

is often not deemed necessary to embody it in a rule. "Parliamentary Practice * and general custom sanction it. No meeting is asked to choose between more than two propositions at a time, in the shape of a motion and an amendment, and onlywhen. either one or the other is voted out can the third one be taken with the one left and voted on. My proposition is m practical application of this principle to the selection of candidates. All that electors are asked 1 to do is to indicate the order of preference after the name of each candidate on the ballot paper, and the method-<rf counting ascertains the wish of the people on each issue?—l am, etc., J. McCOMBS: (Our correspondent's illustration assume! 500 anti-Government' Conservatives,- 300 anti-Government Liberals, and 400 Government Liberals. The question was the existence of the Government, and we contended that the 800 anti-Government '. votes would be cast together, and return the Conservative. Our correspondent , contended that neither the Conservatives nor the Government Liberals being able to return their own candidate, would give their " preference " votes to the antiGovernment Liberal, and .secure-bis-*e- - turn. He thinks it would be wrong for - either the 500 electors or the 400 electors to return the man they wanted, but right for the 300 electors to get the man they wanted. The principle of the practice of taking only one amendment at a time at public meetings would apply to elections," ■ if the defeated party were allowed to nominate a fresh candidate after each poll, b'tit at present it has no application.—Ed. "L.T.")