THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

New Zealand Herald, Volume LIX, Issue 18236, 1 November 1922, Page 8

THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM.

Mr. Wilford claims thajfc he is I following, in the footsteps of the Liberal loaders of the past, but in the matter of the electoral system it is evident that he has been guided rather by legend than actual history. None o£ them, down to the latest of his predecessors, ever set ' the seal of party. adoption on proportional representation. None of them was ever so much disturbed by the occasional anomalies arising from the single ballot as to entertain the deception that~ better government would be secured by an enormous extension of constituencies and by transforming the polling bdoth into a maze of mathematical conundrums. Theoretically, the proportional representation system may be shown to be a superior methocv of ascertaining the measure of support given to ihe various parties, but the agitation for its adoption argues from a misapprehension of the facts to a dismissal of the practical difficulties. It is futile to compile the number of votes recorded for the various party candidates throughout the Dominion, and from the totals determine the' representation of each party. Since there were three parties in the field it is impossible, at the outset, to determine the party allegiance of the electors Who voted in districts where there were only two candidates. The personal factor, which still persists though tho proportional representation would inevitably destroy it, is another element in the fallacy of the conclusion which Mr. Wilford draws from the voting in 1919, In any case the cherished argument that the present Government gained office on a minority vote falls to the ground when attention is directed to the returns from contests in which the elected candidate did not gain an absolute majority. This happened in 2(5 cases. In 15 the Government won. the seat, the average rriinority being 1002 votes; in 11, opposition .candidates were returned, the average minority being 1480. From the figures—a majority of 15,033 against Government • candidates and a majority of 1(3,282 votes against opposition candidates—it would be just as logical to argue that the, Government was entitled to another seat as it is to contend that on the totals for- the Dominion

ifc gained more its share. As a matter 6i fact, it is a delusion that the single ballot particularly favours the party in power. It is the most likely, always ia be embarrassed by a superfluity of candidates—as witness Roskill, Parnell, and other electorates in the present campaign. Indeed, Mr. Wilford personally owes his seat in Parliament 'and his prominence • in politics to the socalled defects qf the present system. But even if need were demonstrated for a change, much more" than a simple affirmation would be required to adapt proportional representation to the sparse population and wide spaces of this country. is recognised in Mr. Wilford's suggestion of three-member constituencies. This is a fatal concession to tinpractical difficulties, for with three parties proportional representation requires at least'four-member groups to be effective, and unless independence is to be ostracised, there must be five-member groups, which even the most ardent proportionalist cani not seriously propose.