THINGS THAT MATTER.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXX, Issue 14983, 1 May 1909, Page 12

THINGS THAT MATTER.

(By J. T. PAUL.)

11. OF THE PEOPLE AND THEIR REPRESENTATION.

Tlio Cynic: Parliament doesn’t matter.

The Pessimist: Parliament is past redemption. Tno Optimist: Parliament is perfect. The Average Man: Parliament is noar enough. The Wiser Man: Parliament is capable of improvement; the beet is wisest.

Our unfortunate experiment with the second ballot compels wide attention to the question of electoral reform. In my first article I contended that Democracy might easily—and possibly would be—a magnificent failure unless the method of election was capable of giving full democratic representation. I did not mean that Democracy should bo partially represented, or that only the dominant school of political principle or tho strongest party should he represented. I submitted that the whole Democracy must be represented in Parliament—that each substantial school of political thought should be reflected in Parliament in proportion to its numerical strength in tho country. Unless this is done the people are only partially represented, and substantial minorities arc ignored. Lot mo hasten to say that majority rule is the only possible rule. Rut majority rule is only just or tolerable when minorities are at least represented or heard. Majority rule and majority representation are two distinct principles. It was the business of some politicians recently to try and make tho people bolieve they were synonymous tc-rms. Fortunately, many of them failed.

Let us shortly analyse our existing electoral system. The franchise—adult suffrage—is quit© satisfactory. The a dominion is divided into seventy-six '< European electorates according to the distribution of population. The method of division is primitive ; the result of such division is often ridiculous, sometimes inequitable, but almost invariably unsatisfactory. Tho one and only factor in fixing our electoral boundaries is population. Configuration of country, community of interest, or national aspirations are never thought of. The cities are divided into sections against themselves. Though there bo perfect community of interest in tho necessities of each city, it is often to the personal political intorest of the member for a section of tho city to act in that sectional interest nnd in opposition to the whole city’s interest and to civic progress. And in the country constituency it almost always pays a member to persuade his constituents that his electorate is the pivot on which the dominion’s fortunes rest, and if his electorate ceases to prosper the dominion is doomed. The interests and future of the nation must always bo subordinated to tho constituency, i’arochialism pays better than patriotism. Ronds and bridges are of more importance than national ideals. Exceptions there are, certainly. But the general rule is the price wo pay for following an unscientific system. Every reader .knows of strong men who have adorned Parliament and were an asset 1 to. the nation. They kept their eyes and their energies fixed on the welfare of the dominion as a whole. They made the culvert, or tho piece of road, or the billet-hunter, or tho Government grant quite a secondary matter—and the electors threw over the patriot for the roads-and-bridges man. So wo divide our colony into sections of varying size. The member for one side of tho .street may be a Revolutionary Socialist; for the other side he may ho what is popularly termed a “hidebound Conservative.” It may bo that tho Socialist member for the one side won tho seat from another “ hide-bound Conservative” by u couple of votes; or that the Conservative defeated the .-Socialist on his side of the street by a couplo of votes. By the grace of that ouple of votes he is in each case the •onstituency’s representative for three . earn, though more than half the voters .u the electorate detest liis polities or ■is person. It is always a majority of -hose who vote that decides the matter.

There may even be a majority of jocialists or Conservatives in a city divided into four single electorates, and under our system either may fail to win .nore than two seats. If certain corners are cut out ©r put in any electorate, it makes all tho difference which member is chosen. Our system is nothing if not haphazard. Then, again, there is a difference in the value of a vote cast by a city resident as compared with that of his country brother. Tho country voters have a quota of 28 per cent in their favour—a country voto is of 28 per cent greater value than a voto cast in a city. Time was when such an inequitablo and undemocratic principle might have been justifiable. In bygone days country population was sparse. Transit difficulties were many. But now this 28 per cent quota applies to electorates containing largo towns, which are well served with transit facilities and have the conveniences of civilisation. For years tho four chief cities were each a single electorate returning three members. That part of our systom was repealed in 1904 because, so the Government of tho day argued, it was undemocratic. But, judged by any standard, it was not in any degree so undemocratic as the present country quota of 28 per cent. “ One vote one value” is truly democratic justice. It would rudely surprise the unthinking to compare German results with New Zealand results as influenced by an inequitable electoral system. Both have the second ballot. Both have an electoral system which distinguishes between the value of two persons’ votes, simply bocauso one votes in a rural, the othor in a city, constituency. Our systom of rural quota cannot be justified either by theory or practice: it is an ugly blot on our electoral law, and could not remain if Now Zealand was at heart as democratic as she believes she is. It was estimated that in tho last Parliament 3700 votes elected a Government member, 8000 elected an Oppositionist, and 8-100 an Independent. Coukl anything be more inequitablo as a result or dangerous in practice?

Again, a member in our representative Chamber is sent there by varying totals. In the House of Representatives ho has cue vote. A member of a city constituency in the present Parliament. has as many as 4700 votes cast in his favour; a member of a country constituency as few as 2000. This would not mean so much had we not the second ballot. It might, of course, liavo happened that in a multiplicity of candidates the totals were reduced; but now in every case a member must have a majority of the votes polled in his constituency. And so, though wo have majority representation of those who voto, some members aro sent to Parliament with 2000 odd more votes than others. I think readers must agree that this unjust quota should go.

And what of our second ballot experiment? 1 submit it was an unqualified failure. I have always regarded its enactment as a mistake. In practice on the Continent it had been proved cumbersome, costly, dangerous and unnecessary. But just when the Continental people were sick of it and were getting rid of it as fast as possiblo, it was doubly remarkable that we should engraft it on to our electoral system. In the first place, the second ballot is wrong because it violates tho principles of true Democracy—that largo minorities should be represented and heard. But even if majority representation is deemed to be equitable, then

majority representation can be best attained by the preferential vote and single ballot so long advocated by Mr M’Nab in bis Absolute Majority Bill. That plan saves the larger expense of a second ballot. It prevents unfair bargaining between unplaced sections in the first ballet. It ensures that the wishes of each electorate will be expressed independent of what any other i part of the dominion decrees. It does not permit lightning changes of political colour. It ensures that the same i votens decide the result. In a word, I such a system would confer all the i benefits claimed for. but not achieved by, the second ballot, and would be free from its positive objections. But the absolute-majority system is also opposed to true Democracy, for the reason that it prevents representation of the whole Democracy. The vital objections to the second ballot aro many. It is too costly. Thousands of pounds have been already wasted. It fails to do more than secure a. majority of those who vote. It fails absolutely to select tho best man, or tho man the electors consider best, in an election contest. Take tho Thames by-election, the latest illustration of the second ballot in action. Any references I make in these articles are, of course, quite impersonal. At the first ballot the leading candidate on tho poll secured 1308 votes. The second candidate had 850 votes. These two went to tho second ballot. The three other candidates scored 1674 votes, 366 more than the first and nearly twioe as many as tlie second candidate. By what system of logic can it bo argued that any one of tho throe eliminated from the second ballot might not have defeated tho first or second candidate in a straight-out fight? Again, from the point of view- of party, it was not a trial of strength in the second ballot. Government candidates were first and second on the poll. Opposition candidates were third and fifth. The second Government candidate scored 850, and he went to the second ballot. Tho Opposition vote was 1067, but the Opposition was debarred from going to the second ballot. Then, let us take some of tho “ reversals of form ” shown by the constituencies at the recent second ballots. Put in tills form they aro more quickly grasped w Votes at Votes at

These figures imply cither a bad electoral system or a very slack hold of political principle. Strange to 6ay — and yet not so strange because lilje cause" usually produces like effect—the same experience has generally followed tho second ballot wherever and whenever tried. Arrangements—M. Yves Guyot. called them “ detestable bargainings”—or potty pique, or both, create these “ reversals of form.” What tho other electorates have done at the first ballot unduly influences the voter at the second ballot. The latter is therefore in a favoured position —he knows the strength of parties; he has an advantage over tho voter at the first ballot. Tho second ballot does not secure election of the representative of tho strongest party. In Wellington East at the first ballot tho Opposition candidate scored 2412 votes, the Independent Labour candidate 1746, and the two Government candidates 2381. Though the Government voto was 635 more than the Independent Labour vote our second ballot system eliminated the second strongest party in the electorate for the third strongest, with the result that the third strongest party secured the seat. When it is agreed that the result claimed for the second ballot—majority representation—is wron ° in principle, it is amazing that tho peoplo should he side-tracked into wasting time with a Continental electoral back number. With a faulty system, is it any wonder that tho least desirable candidate sometimes wins. Tho choice of the electors is unduly restricted because in the interests of each party only one name as a rule is placed before tho electors. Tho doubt of the American is sometimes shared by us though perhaps for a different reason, but the doggerel lines which originated “ over thar ” are not impossible of New Zealand application : He writes from out of Denver, and tho story’s mighty sh-ort; I just can’t tell his mother, it’ll crush her poor ole heart; And so I leckon. pa-rson, you might break, tho nows to her; Bill's in the Legislatur’, hut he doesn’t say what fur; Summarised, my contentions are that democracy is not represented in tho House of Representatives in any failproportion to the strength of its various political sections. In the interests of the nation it is desirable that every substantial school of political thought

should be represented in the House. Political theories or principles cannot be tested anywhere so well as on the floor of Parliament. Each considerable section has a right to be heard and a right to representation. After' securing those fundamental rights the majority should rule. Progress, stability, patriotism and good government all depend on the granting of these rights. Deny a voice and representation to a considerable section of the democracy and you produce anarchism. Anarchists can only bo turned into useful citizens by being given responsibility. Any system of representation which cannot secure the best candidate, or which produces a Parliament that does not reflect the political principles of the people who elect it in direct ratio to their strength, is faulty and dangerous. I believe our system in its fundamental essentials is both. We should always remember that the electoral system is the environment which produces the member of Parliament. Therefore wo cannot neglect it.

I believe the time has come to consider the best method to improve our system of parliamentary and local election. Condemnation and destructive criticism are of little use unless a better way can he shown. Parliament is the channel through which our national and social aspirations aro crystallised into law. Therefore, I consider the system of representation which creates Parliament is among the first Things That Matter. I propose to outline improvements on the basis of proportional representation in ray next article.

Tuapeka— First Ballot. Second Ballot. Government . 2SS3 1783 Opposition Dunedin North— . 1433 2477 Government . 3816 3376 Opposition Wellington North- . 3066 3382 Government . 3691 2896 Opposition . 2874 3696