THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JULY 22, 1935. THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22629, 22 July 1935, Page 8

THE OTAGO DAILY TIMES MONDAY, JULY 22, 1935. THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM

It may be assumed that legislation having for its object the drastic amendment of the existing electoral law in New Zealand will not engage the attention of Parliament during the coming short session. Both the Acting Prime Minister and the Acting Minister of Finance have had the question put to them in the past week. In Wellington Sir Alfred Ransom admitted that the possibility of a change in the electoral system had been discussed tentatively, but no concrete proposal had come before Cabinet. In Auckland Mr Hamilton dismissed the matter in almost the same terms. For reasons which should be obvious any proposal at this juncture, almost on the eve of a general election, to change the method whereby the people's representatives in-Parliament are chosen must be open to serious objection. If the Government itself were to sponsor such a proposal at this late stage in the life of the Parliament it would almost certainly be accused of having in view some motive other than the laudable one of ensuring that the new House should reflect, perhaps more accurately than is possible under the system of election now operating, the considered opinion of the electorate. It is extremely improbable, however, that the Government will place itself in such an ernbarrassing position, in spite of the strident call for " reform " which is being heard at this stage from those who profess to see in the multiplicity of candidates offering to contest certain seats a grave danger that another general election under the " flrst-past-the-post" system will result in a House of Representatives not at all representative of the majority of the electors. It is true that the Lyttelton by-election has attracted four candidates. It is also true that the announcement that a candidate will contest the Wairau seat in the interests of the Democrat Party extends the field there to five aspirants. It may be expected, however, that some of these will wisely, before nomination day arrives, weigh the risk of the loss of their deposit against their slender chances of success. But surely it is taking an altogether too gloomy view to say, as has been said, that the whole structure of democratic government Avill be threatened if such "multiangular" contests arc to become the common practice under the system of voting with which New Zealand is familiar.

It is admitted, even by many champions of proportional representation or of preferential voting, that the present method worked well enough under a comparatively stable two-party system. Yet the number of parties does not present any grave difficulty to-day. There are still two main parties, represented, for the purposes of the election, by the Coalition and the Labour Party, the Democrat Party having yet to establish its right to recognition. It may be argued that the Independents confuse the issue on polling day. To an extent they do, but it can seldom be charged against them with certainty that their vote-splitting has caused the defeat of one accepted party man or enabled the victory of another. What is disturbing is that too many so-called Independents nowadays enlarge their label by indicating a party affiliation. A little reasoning, perhaps a little coaxing or a sterner party discipline, might go a long way towards simplifying the task of the voter at a general election. It should not be beyond the powers of the party organisation to name its one candidate for each constituency, and to see, as the Labour Party does, that the choice stands, regardless of the fact that others within

the party may claim an equal right to nomination. There is a likelihood that something is wrong within the party itself in the spectacle of candidates professing party sympathies prejudicing at the polls the chances of others to whom official approval has been given. For the rest, it is possible that the reaction of most electors to any proposal to change the method of voting would be "Better the evil we know. . . ." The Dominion's one experience of the second ballot was sufficient to show how its processes could be abused. Proportional representation might accurately determine the preferences of voters, but it contributes nothing toward that simplicity of: method which is all-important. The Labour Party, as fairly recent experience has shown, is no longer convinced, as it used to be, of the superior advantages of this system. And it is to be feared that the alternative vote system offers opportunities for unethical practice just as the second ballot does, though not in the same degree.