Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLIV, Issue 645, 2 March 1923, Page 4

Manawatu Evening Standard. FRIDAY, MARCH 2, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

An announcement made by' the Prime Minister during the recent short session of Parliament is arousing considerable interest in political circles, in view of the demand for electoral reform, more particularly as it affects the present voting system. Mr Massey admitted that the ‘present system has its imperfections and intimated that he was in favour of reform in the present voting system. At the same time he recognised that there were difficulties in the way of introducing either the proportional or preferential voting systems. The former, as we have repeatedly pointed out, would be largely, if not wholly destructive, of the country quota, and would play into the hands of tne most highly organised party, giving it undue representation to the detriment of the electors really constituting the majority. It is a system moreover which cannot he held to be applicable to the circumstances of this country, where the electorates are in many cases of such wide extent that community of interests almost ceases to exist. ' To throw together, in the fashion suggested by any of the Proportional Representation Bills which have been before the House, three or more country electorates would simply mean an increase in the difficulties which already confront a candidate seeking acquaintance with the requirements of the constituency he desires to represent, and would make it almost impos* sible for him, even were he elected, to come properly into touch with his constituents during his term of Parliamentary office. We are well aware of the contention that the country quota can be maintained under the proportional representation, system, but those who claim to give effect to the principle under such a system must surely do so hypocritically, because in the grouping or throe or more electorates together the town vote, which is necessarily included, increases to such an extent that it practically swamps the rural vote and so destroys the effect of the quota itself. The preferential voting system is certainly preferable to proportional representation, but-it also, has its drawbacks, and one of these was referred to by Mr Massey in the House of Representatives the other day. Drawing upon the experience of the recent Federal elections m Australia, Mr Massey quoted from Australian Life in support of its unsatisfactory incidence.. In the Kooyong electorate (Victoria) three candidates contested the seat; Sir Robert Best, Nationalist; Mr Latham, Liberal; and Miss Jean Daley—a housemaid frpm a well-known college-—representing Labour. On the initial count. Sir Robert Best with 13,742 votes headed the poll, Mr Latham coming next with 9589 and Miss Jean. Daley third, with 5342 votes, Being excluded,. Miss Daley’s votes were distributed between the two other candidates, with the result that Mr Latham obtained the seat, as the sequence of an understanding under which Miss Daley’s supporters gave their second preference votes to Mr Latham, although . that gentleman had expressly disclaimed representing the opinions of the people who voted for Miss Daley. In a straight out contest between Sir Robert Best and Mr Latham there is very little doubt that, as both wore practically pledged to support the Nationalist Party against Labour, the former would have won the seat; but, as the Australian journal points out, Mr Latham,

representing two totally opposed minorities, displaces Sir Robert Best'who has a clear majority over each of these minorities. THE OBJECTION TO PREFERENTIAL VOTING. The preferential system, in actual operation, enables a minority, and even a very small minority, in a given district, to defeat the candidate who represents the political opinions held by a far larger number of electors than any other political theory in the field. In the case cited “there were three distinct add conflicting policies in debate and, as a result of the preferential system, the theory held by a greater num- 1 ' her of Kooyoug electors than either of the other two theories was rejected. The method of voting which makes such a result possible (Life adds) can hardly be described as satisfactory/’ In quoting this particular case it seems to us that Mr Massey voiced the great objection which can be raised against preferential voting, since it permits of minorities combining to defeat the will of the majority—a similar result being also possible of attainment under proSmal representation. The second system, which was introduced by Sir Ward, was objected to on precisely similar grounds, and its repeal was demanded because it was seen that, in actual operation, it permitted of corrupt bargainings between minorities to secure the defeat of the majority, the only difference being that, with the numbers up, it was an easier matter for the minorities to act in combination against the majority. It 'is thought that Mr Massey will probably refer the whole question s! electoral re-' form to a committee of the House to be specially set up for the purpose and consisting of members of all three parties. The Prime Minister has, indeed, practically said as much. We are inclined, however, to think that such a committee will be unable to suggest any material improvement on the existing “first-past-the-post” system, which appears to be about as fair to all parties concerned as any system that has yet been suggested. It will be a bad day for this country if ever machine politics dominate the constituencies, as they must inevitably do if either proportional representation or the preferential voting system takes the place of the present system. We say this, knowing that, so far as one party is concerned, its members are entirely in the hands of their party machine, and that they cannot act without it. Not even Mr Holland himself would dare to go against the Labour machine. Even the great Mr Dooley is in its toils. Like all political machines it is merciless in its operation, and is controlled by the irresponsible organisation comprising the Labour Representation Committees, which are appointed from time to time the New’ Zealand Labour Party. No candidate may offer himself to the electors unless he receives permission from the committee in charge of his particular electorate, and should he elect to stand as in Independent Labour candidate he becomes a marked man. While vote-splitting is to be deprecated on the part of 'those who seek to hold the balance of power in favour of the moderately minded sections of the community, it seems to us it would be introducing a vicious practice into the politics'of the country to refuse any citizen the right to seek the suffrages of the electors. Discipline is, of course, very necessary in all party organisations, but it can be carried to a point where it infringes the rights of citizenship and unduly handicaps the elector in the exercise of his Undoubted rights as a citizen. We confess that, in common with others interested in the subject, we shall await with interest, and some little curiosity, the further disclosure of the Prime Minister’s views upon electoral reform, seeing that he has practically condemned tlje two principal alternatives to our existing voting method.