VOTE-SPLITTING

Otago Daily Times, Issue 22712, 26 October 1935, Page 12

VOTE-SPLITTING

It is possible to believe, with the leader of the Democrat Party, that there has never been much in the cry of votesplitting in New Zealand, if he means that, taken over a series of years, the number of minority-representatives has not been very great. But that is explained by the fact that there have generally been only two organised parties. For a man professedly intent on the future, Mr Hislop seems, however, to concern himself overmuch with the past. The reality of the moment is that he is leading a third political party which proposes to contest most of the seats in the Dominion. He dislikes the Government and the Opposition with an admirable impartiality. Riding in pontifical state along the middle way, he is not even on nodding acquaintance with either Dr Jekyll or Mr Hyde on the sidewalks. Can he be so scornful, in the circumstances, of the likelihood of vote-splitting occurring next month? Some electors whose votes would probably have gone either to the Government or to Labour will choose to take a chance on Mr Hislop. The Opposition itself has seen fit to issue a warning, through the party’s general secretary, of the possible consequences of any diversion of support from Labour to the Democrats, but a sounder conclusion is that the dividing of the anti-Labour vote will be the most likely outcome of Mr Hislop’s industrious stumping of the country. Mr Hislop prefers, or- pretends, to think otherwise. It would naturally not be convenient for him to explain from what quarter he expects to get his votes. In any case, he says, the Government could have safeguarded itself against the risk of vote-splitting by introducing a system of preferential voting. And that is true enough. There is merit, however, in the view expressed by the Prime Minister that reform of the electoral system should be the responsibility of a new Parliament, not of a Parliament on the eve of dissolution. A proposal to introduce a system of preferential voting might fairly be made an election issue. But, though he favours preferential voting, Mr Hislop does not put it in the forefront of his party’s programme. Parliament has for years past refused to consider very seriously the proposals that have been before it for a change in the system of election. There have been measures on the Order Paper, introduced by private members, providing for the use of an alternative vote by electors, but the proposals in them have generally been regarded as of academic interest only. The Government came into office on the system which now obtains and it has chosen to retain that voting method for this election, regardless of the consequences. Its critics, Mr Hislop among them, would doubtless have welcomed an opportunity to accuse it of running for cover, but this has been denied them. The Democrat leader, however, is obviously deriving a great deal of satisfaction from his self-chosen role of a crusader against Socialism, whether of the Right or the Left. All he can be sure of doing is to assist into power one of the two parties which he now dismisses with such lofty contempt-