PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXIV, Issue 13936, 19 December 1905, Page 6

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

"We need not quarrel with the “Now | Zealand Times” ever the method by : which the new members of the reconstructed Cabinet should be appointed. Mr Sedclon is not at all likely to leave

the selection of his colleagues to the Liberal caucus, and even if lio did we should not regard it as any great concession to the principle of the Elective Executive. But we must protest against our contemporary's assertion that the system of proportional representation which wo have, advocated is opposed to tho true democratic ideal. “Minority representation,” it says, “ whether arrived at through a flaw in our electoral system, or through the Hare method of election, or by the devious ways incident to the Elective Executive proposals, is a thing to be resisted by every Liberal.” We have nothing to say in defence of the flaws in our present electoral system, but it is utterly ridiculous to argue that majority rule, the weight of tho big battalions, represents all that is admirable in the democratic ideal. We are satisfied that the cure for half the ills of our political life would be found in the adoption of the Haro system of proportional representation. The cheap criticism levelled against this system is that it provides for the representation of minorities, a thing, 'according to our contemporary, which every Liberal should resist; but as a matter of fact it provides for the equitable representation of ©very section of tho electors. The need for the reform could not be better illustrated than by tho result of the recent elections. There were 56 Liberals returned at the polls, 15 : Conservatives and 5 Independents, while the numbers in proportion to the electors of each “colour” should have been 41 Liberals, 24 Conservatives and 11 Independents. This means that the. Liberals have fifteen more members than they are fairly entitled to, the Conservatives nine fewer and tho Independents six fewer. And it is not only that tho majority receives more than its just share of representation under the present system. The system is objectionable in other ways. Mr Massey, for instance, as leader of the Opposition, would have been quite sure of election under the Hare system, and might have left his constituency to help his party in other' parts of the colony. But as it was he was .compelled to stop at home and fight for his own seat while scores of his followers were crying out for his assistance. Then Ministers of tho Crown, who should have been judged by the whole colony, had to appeal to a mere handful of electors and to accept their verdict as to whether they should remain in public life or not. Why should five or six thousand people in Timaru decide the fate cf the Minister of Public Works, or the same number in Waiapu the fate of the Native Minister? It is conceivable that the services of the Premier of the colony might do lost to the community by his refusal to build a bridge on some main road in his district or by a local wav© of prohibition or reactionary sentiment. The electorates are all too small, and email electorates ' encourage the return of small men with small ideas and smaller aspirations. The Hare system of proportional representation would remedy all this and would give us a Parliament in' which the democratic ideal of government of the people by the people would bo something more than a mere phrase. Our present system, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives prevail, can give us nothing better than government of the people by a dominant party.