THE SECOND BALLOT

New Zealand Times, Volume XXXI, Issue 6964, 2 November 1909, Page 7

THE SECOND BALLOT

(To the Editor "N.Z. Times.”) Sir, —I am sorry to differ from the opinion of a progressive man like Mr Ell, but in the debate on Mr Fisher’s Bill you report him as saying “that the Labour party secured its only representative through the second ballot, which ■had nrevented minority representation in Jfangitikei.” In one breath Mr Eli commends the second ballot for giving us minority representation in Wellington East, and in the next breath he commends it for preventing minority representation in Raligitikei. -\s a majority representation method it was a defect in tlie second ballot method that gave Labour its one direct representative, which defect might on a future occasion operate to defeat Labour. If the Liberal vote of ’MSI had not been split ■ between Messrs W. McLean and G. Winder, Mr McLaren would never have rilinlifiecl for the final ballot. The second ballot was supposed to prevent the evils of vote-

•splitting, but in Wellington East it failed to do so. J am not opposed to LaIxmr having direct representation, and I think that Mr McLaren is a distinct acquisition to the House, but Labour should net have to depend for its representation on a fluke or a defect in an ejection method. .Proportional representation ’ would ensure Labour full representation in proportion to its voting strength, and instead of having only cue direct representative in the House, it would have at least a dozen. It is all bunkum about a poor man not being able to contest an election 'under a proportional representation method. A candidate docs not have to get a majority of the votes cast. He has merely to get the necessary quota, which, if it were 4000, and he secured that number in one town, he would be returned. On the question of proportional representation Mr Massey is more progressive than Mr EH.—I am, etc., J. McCOMBS. Christchurch, October 30th.