REASONS RANTED.

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17982, 26 December 1918, Page 4

REASONS RANTED.

I It is an extraordinary fact that of the v ten members of the City Council who , voted out proportional representation ' five gave, absolutely silent votes, while ' i of the rest only one spoke for more 'than a few minutes. The public has, ! therefore, been supplied with no rea- , eons why the old majority method of election should be brought in again and the sound principles of proportional i (representation bo abandoned. We submit that this is not a respectful way ■ for councillors to treat the electors. : The people have every moral right to know what it was that influenced the majority which decided in favour of reaction, and we take leave to say that in common fairness every one of the ten, before repeating his vote at the meeting which is necessary to confirm the resolution, ought .to tell the people, in definite and intelligent terms, what objection he has to proportional repre- ' sentation. The Mayor, who presided • over the council which promoted the 0 reform and induced Parliament to give it effect, might reasonably take the lead. Councillor Beanland, who was placed at the top of the poll under the new system, owes to his supporters an explanation of his opposition to the machinery that was used. What particular defects can ho discover in a voting system that gave him pride of ' place? And all of the councillors who are bent upon upsetting a highly important reform must surely recognise that silent votes cannot satisfy their constituents. If they wish to retain ' ■ 'the confidence placed in them last year " ' these attackers of true representation jnust bo candid about it. They must

como out in tho open., and state the reasons for their action- For not one of them was sent to the council table with authority to change the existing system of voting. When the present Mayor and council were elected these gentlemen who, have now attacked the new system gave no hint of hostility to electoral reform. When they were candidates they did not tell the people that if elected they would discard this very important measure of reform passed by their predecessors and accepted by tho men and women of the city. Why was that? It was either because they then saw nothing wrong with the system or'else because they were afraid to attack it openly. Their silence on the subject at the election makes it reasonable to think that they did not at that time disfavour proportional representation, but have acquired their hostility to the system in the meantime. That being the case, it should be a. simple matter to state the defects which they think they have discovered in tho system. Surely that is not too much to ask? In our opinion, this is not a subject upon which ,anv self-respecting councillor should be willing to give a silent vote. • Every one of the ten ought to have justified his vote on Tuesday morning—or tried to do so—by specifying at least some intelligent objections to proportional representation. Tho debate certainly lasted long enough to provide them with opportunities to speak. However, they will have another chance.