Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY. JULY 10, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

Poverty Bay Herald, Volume XLIX, Issue 16174, 10 July 1923, Page 2

Poverty Bay Herald. PUBLISHED EVERY EVENING. GISBORNE, TUESDAY. JULY 10, 1923. ELECTORAL REFORM.

, At a general election for tlie return of a member to Parliament—- . A receives .. 1999 votes B receives .. 2000 votes G receives .. 2001 votes C is. returned, although 3999 electors have voted against him. It is evident that C is in no sense a true represen- ) tative of the district for which he is , strangely entitled to be returned. He is a mere creature of chance. A creature, too, possibly representative of uncontrolled or immature impulses which set at largo may •work acute public mischief. The electors are entirely unprotected" against this sort of thing happening at any election. The evil was manifest in many cases at the last general election. The party system will always produce candidates to wave the flag of the particular party shibboleth. If not, the egotism, or legitimate ambition, of individuals, will induce nominations, on tlie chance of getting in at a split-up. poll. Some means will have to be found to ensure, as far as possible, that the member returned does in fact represent the dis- " trict which gives him his right to a seat in Parliament. We do imt know - w hat form of preferential voting the ; Government will, in pursuance of the Prime Minister’s promise, introduce this session. The problem should not present extraordinary difficulties to ' willing minds. "Where there are mdre than two candidates, why should not the elector be allowed to indicate his order of preference up say to three names? This should not bo compule sory. If he chooses to vote only for the man of his choice, and. is indif--1 ferent as to the others, either of those others is fully entitled to beneiit by his indifference. A voting paper giving the elector an opportunity of putting ! a number indicating his order, of preference would be quite as simple as, . the present ballot paper. Simplicity is the primary requisite, in a voting paper. It would be perfectly natural for the voter to put the numeral 1 against the name of tlie man of his choice, and to put in the other num- . erals, 2 and 3, against the names favored, if ho wished to use his right of preference. The paper would bo something. like this, with the proper directions added:— a j i __ ——j . jj C I 2 ‘ • We have assumed the order of preference to bo A, C, B. If A, B, or O have a clear majority over the other two when their votes are combined there is an end of the \ matter. If j neither the three have such a majority then the question of using the second preference votes arises. No doubt this would give the returning officer a little more trouble. After- all it is only filling in a prepared schedule as the voting papers, are checked. The counting should then be auto- • matic. If, as in our first case set out ! above, C, with the second preference j votes cast in his favor, could acquire a majority of tho votes polled, or, at any rate, a greater approach to such - a majority than either of tlie other candidates, using theii second preference votes, could count, then he, C, , would bo entitled to the seat. On the ether hand, if A, with the second preference votes given to him, had the] majority, or the nearest approach to such a majority, ha would be entitled to bo returned. Of course, B would; have the same right. There are some-j I imes more than three candidates who j elect to go to the poll. We do not think the preference should extend to more than three. It may be contended that a system of preferential voting would act prejudicially to the advancement of new ideas. That such ideas w-ould be unduly handicapped in obtaining recognition in practical politics. There is a good deal to bo said for tho contention. 'On the other hand the evils of the ' prosent* give much too early a place to immature ideas. The ventilation of crude and wholly undigested—-and wo. think we may say wholly indigestible—ideas, is responsible for the unjustifiable waste if time and v r ords in Wellington, and lor the hindrance to the progress of tho real business of tho country. . THE CONSTITUTION. The Prime Minister last Thursday nude a rather remarkablo statement when speaking to his formal, resolution: “That the resolutions passed at the Imperial Conference are only obligatory on any Dominion if they arc confirmed by the .Parliament of that Dominion. ” He said: —“We should have exactly tho same right as tho Ministers who represent the British Government, and we should be iu tho position of j approaching the Sovereign. ’ ’ The reason given for this aspiration was thus stated: “We have never yet got to that stage when Dominion representatives wore able to join with the representatives of tho British Govern- ' mont in making communications to the Sovereign, tho head of the British Empire." The complaint, if it indeed ' was intended as a complaint, is not well grounded. It places the King in j a position which lie certainly would ■ Hot claim. As head of liis Executive t Council no doubt tho experience and , advice of tho Sovereign arc freely , given to his Ministers. The acts of , tho Crown are not, however, based i upon tho personal views of the Sov- j ereign, but are solely founded upon the 1 responsible advice of Ministers. This ' must bo so, so long as the Ministers c remain in the servico of the Crown. I Mr. Massey was not talking of a more 3 visit of courtesy to the Sovereign; Any * other approach to the Sovereign by a 1 Dominion Government could only be to I advise. If “direct approach" means 1 anything at all, it means that in mat- * tors affecting a Dominion tho Governmeat of: that Dominion would have the Q right to carry into effect its own e wishes through the Crown in matters e indirectly at least common to the Em- g pi re without the concurrence or oven U the approval of the Imperial Govern-! p

ment, Avliicli is responsible for tho safety and the welfare of the ~Enu pire. The Dominions must put up with wtint of representation in the Cabinet of the Imperial Government. Bo far no phut of a ivorkabfe Ji'lture has been hit, Upon to give them that representfetioh. Its kek cannot be made good by Mr. Massey’s snort cut of individual Dominion approach to the Sovereign* ’ As every Dominion has practically an unfettered right to make what laws it likes for the good order and government of its people, the mutters upon which an approach to the Sovereign, other than through the Imperial Government, could be desired Could only be mutters of conflicting advice or of querulous complaint upon which the individual Dominion held nn independent Opinio®. 'What a medley there., would l)p. If cacti Dominion differed from every other Dominion and from the Imperial and responsible Government. If an independent approach to. the Sovereign is desired for the ventilation of grievances, is it' not a lit tic, like two boys playing in one yard? The bigger boy slaps the smaller, who runs off howling, “I’ll toll nurse.” Mr. Massey'in his able and comprehensive speech saw* clearly enough the-weakness of Cnn,aua’s position in claiming the right of making an independent treaty, yet did not sec the weakness of his own suggestion.