THE SECOND BALLOT.

Marlborough Express, Volume XLII, Issue 216, 11 September 1908, Page 3

THE SECOND BALLOT.

CONTEMPORARY" OPINION

The Second Ballot Bill, with the latest amendment introduced by the Government, is getting beyond a joke. We are not surprised that even the Ministerial hacks are becoming alarmed at the prospect. It is gradually being converted into an instrument for enabling; the Government to get entirely their own way at the general election and for preventing freedom of speech on the wart of the newspapers and the public. It is absurd to speak of the measure as a Bill to enable the majority to rule. Even the most servile organs of the t3©vernment disclaim this credit for the measure. It is a Bill to give effect to the •will of the majority of the minority who will take the trouble to go to the poll a second time, and all experience shows that this is only a small proportion of the original voters. fortunately the licensing question overshadows general political issues in this country, and when the local option poll lias been decided a large number of the electors will not trouble to go to the polling booth a second time to vote again for a candidate for whom they have already cast their suffrages. The restrictions which the Government have introduced, ostensibly* with the view of preventing undue influence being exercised in the interval between the two polls, simply make the measure ten times worse than it was before. New Zealanders are to be denied the right of public meeting and of freedom of speech during the crisis of a general election. Not even in Russia, or in the most disturbed districts in Ireland, or the most seditious parts of India, _ is there such despotic interference with what has always been regarded as the elementary right of a freeborn citizen. If the provision is intended to prevent the exercise of undue influence between the two elections it is as futile as it is unconstitutional. It will not prevent Ministers or their emissaries from pursuing a plan which has been found very effective in many elections, namely, debauching a constituency by promising the prosecution of local works with public money, the condition being always implied, and perfectly well understood, that the Government candidate must first be elected. The Opposition, who are not in a position to make such promises, even if they desired to do so, are of course hopelessly handicapped in such an uneven contest. Again, it has been pointed out that while the section prevents candidates and their fiends from holding meetings in their behalf, it is probably still open to any outside organisation such, as the prohibitionists, the liquor party, or the Socialists to hold meetings for the purpose of attacking a particular candidate who, under this remarkable piece of legislation, would be absolutely debarred from appearing on a platform in order to defend himself. A more un-English, not to say idiotic, provision it is almost impossible to conceive.

Nor is this all. We are not only to be deprived of the time-honoured right of public meeting, but the Press is to be bound and gagged. Section 2 of the amendment makes it a penal offence for cajididates or other persons to print, exhibit, or distribute during the interval between the first and second poll any "advertisement, notice, address, or other document with intent to promote, procure, advocate, oppose or prevent the election of any candidate at the second ballot, or to influence or procure the vote of any elector at the second ballot." That any British representative assembly could be persuaded to r>ass such a monstrous provision as this, however

anxious members might be to get away to their electioneering, is to us almost beyond belief. The present House of Representatives has shown itself more than once in a very contemptible light in failing to stand up for the liberty of the subject, but we refuse to believe that even such a spineless body would have passed this clause had it understood all that it meant. The whole fabric of constitutional government rests on freedom of discussion as its foundation stone. It is the right of, every Briton to discuss the fitness of a candidate for public office so long as he is before the public. This wretched abortion of a Bill proposes to take away this right, to substitute for the wholesome antiseptic of free speech the underground arts of the political intriguer, the; secret innuendoes1 of the stabber of reputations. Under this clause the most wicked lies might be circulated privately about a candidate in the interval between the two polls, and if he attempted to defend himself on the platform or in the Press he would render himself liable to prosecution. The most corrupt devices might be employed by the Government in aid of the Ministerial candidate,, and a •newspaper which exposed the scandal and urged the electors to vote for the Opposition candidate, in order to help ito oust the Government from power, would bring itself within the operation of the law. Scarcely less objectionable is the suggestion emanating from a Ministerial source that "during the interval between the two polls the proposition submitted to the electors should be regarded, as sub judice according to the Supreme Court definition." There is absolutely no analogy _ between the two cases. When a prisoner or a cause is being tried before a judge and jury, evidence on both sides is adduced, and the _Court has ample material upon which to come to a decision. In such a case it would be manifestly improper for any outside body or person to interfere with a view to influence the judgment of the case. The election of a member for the House stands entirely on ;a different footing. /The candidate in a sense may be said to be on his trial before the electors. But there is no constituted Court to be interfered with, and. no formal evidence is called. The only material which the electors have on which to ground their decision consists in the arguments for and against the candidate adduced in the course of free discussion. This material is to be withheld from them in the case of the second ballot. It is still permitted

to us before the first ballot to compare the respective merits of candidates A, B, and.-C. But when the first vote is taken and C is found to be at the bottom of the poll, we dare not advance any reason iri public why A is to be preferred to B, or B to A. If the people of New Zealand tamely submit to such infamous tyranny as this, it will not be long before it is made a criminal offence for them to discuss politics at all before an election. They will simply have to vote blindfolded for the candidate whom the Government is pleased to favour. And we must say they will richly deserve their fate. A people who wall tamely submit to having the right of a free platform and a free Press taken away from them, do not deserve any rights at all.—Christchurch Press. The Prime Minister must not attempt to repair the obvious defects of his Bill by the introduction of impossible amendments' Its inevitable limitations must be endured. The proposal that after the first ballot candidates or their friends should be prevented by severe pains and penalties from making a final appeal to the electors scarcely escapes being ludicrous. The Conservative candidate or his friends might observe the law, but the newspaper, whether Conservative or not, certainly would laugh it to scorn. If the fate of the Liberal Government \ were hanging on the result of a second ballot in one of the Christchurch constituencies, would it be reasonable to expect the newspapers on one side or the other to refrain from "printing or publishing or exhibiting or distributing" any matter that might influence the electors? Of course it would not. The contest would rage morejuriously between the two polls than it had done at any time before. The proverbial coach and four might be driven through the law in a score of ways. The Minister seems to have contemplated this himself in' providing that each candidate shall be at liberty to spend £50 on the election between the first poll and the second poll. How would he spend fifty pounds or even fifty pence if he were shut up in his own house and forbidden to address meetings or distribute political literature, or to pass the time of day to a neighbouring elector? We hope that the amendments which were made in the Bill on Friday will be deleted when the measure reaches the Legislative Council. They are altogether undesirable and utterly impracticable. We can understand the Prime Minister's wish to limit the turmoil of the election to the time before the first poll, but he cannot accomplish the impossible, and having selected the Second Ballot Bill in preference to the Absolute Majority Bill he must take the measure with all its defects and trust to the electors enduring them as best they can.—Lyttelton Times. The Government, having behind it an overwhelming and : unthinking majority, will no doubt carry into law its Second-Ballot Bill, quite regardless of th<*se considerations of justice and right which should be the underlying basis of all legislation. The original proposal was that, in cases where there are more than two candidates and no one man secures more voltes than all his opponents put together, a second ballot shall be held a week or a fortnight after the general election. At that ballot only the two candidates leading the poll will be submitted. The whole principle' of the second ballot is obnoxious. Some fatal objections stand out from the mass of destructive criticism that has been evoked by the measure. In the first place the way is opened to endless corruption and wire-pulling. Between the first and second ballots there is a lapse of sufficient time to enable all sorts of influences to be brought into operation upon susceptible voters. One can easily imagine an unscrupulous Government making use of the interval to rally the electors to its standard, and however stringent the j prohibition may be made upon interference, we know enough of political tactics in the past to be convinced that a way would be found of circumventing the law. A judiciously promised public work or well-timed grant in aid might not come under the legal category of corruption, while, being I none the less as really bribery as a payment to individuals. On the Continent the second ballot Jhus had v long trial, and it has been found useless to secure a true representation of the electors. The most objectionable development has been a system of bargaining, which falsifies the declared character of the popular vote. Where the two candidates leading the poll secure approximately the same number of votes, the voters for the third party, if they are sufficiently organised, can bargain with the first two candidates' for support, and the one who is prepared to make the most concessions is elected. Nn legislation in the world can eliminate these undesirable tactics. On these grounds the measure under discussion is unworthy of a place on the Statute Book of the Dominion. So determined was the opposition shown by Mr Massey's party to the Bill that the

Prime Minister on Saturday morning abandoned the absolute ;■ majority principle and was content to. accept Mr James Allen's suggestion that a majority of five hundred should tbe deemed to be an absolute majority. This is an improvement, though not a very vital one, and may be taken as a compliment to the logical nature of the objections. It does not, however, rob the arguments of the Opposition of any of their force. When the people fully understand the effect that the second ballot will have on their representation, the Government will bo called upon for some explanations that will be difficult to make.— Manawatu Standard. Already the authors of the second ballot foolishness are finding themselves in deep waters. A clause has been added to the measure making it a high crime and a misdemeanour to do any electioneering in the districts concerned during the week^jfehat must elapse before the second ballot takes place. The Press and the parties are to be bound and gagged, although it looks as if any other group of interested persons could chip in and make the contest as merry as they chose. The Bill was bad enough in the first place^ but now it is a monstrosity masquerading in the guise of electoral reform, and it will be a good thing for the country if the Upper House refuses to assist in putting it on the statute book. —Christchurch Truth. .