The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1923. CLUTCHING AT STRAWS.

Southland Times, Issue 18929, 1 May 1923, Page 4

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. TUESDAY, MAY 1, 1923. CLUTCHING AT STRAWS.

It was inevitable that the Otago Daily Times and the Christchurch Press would mark the municipal elections in Christchurch With a renewal of their arguments against Proportional Repreasntation, but few people could have expected these solemn journals to develop such amusing cases The Otago Daily Times sedately takes out for an airing the old, old argument that Proportional Representation, because it requires the marking of preferences, gives the people whose names appear high up on the ballot papers an unfair advantage. Scrutinising the Christchurch returns, the Otago Daily Times makes the terrible discovery of the five candidates declared elected on the first count, four possessed names beginning with “A” and the name of the fifth began with “B.” This is proof unanswerable, for the Dunedin journal, which proceeds:

The explanation is very plain. Instead of placing a cross opposite the name of the candidate for whom it is desired to vote, the elector, under the proportional representation system, uses figures—1, 2, 3 and so on—to indicate his choice. In the exercise of his voting right he begins at the top of the list, and’it is not wholly surprising if in a large proportion of cases the candidates appearing first in alphabetical order on the “ticket” which he favours, receives first-choice prefer ence.

This is very impressive, but unhappily for the Otago Daily Times it is not supported by the facts. If the contention of the Dunedin newspaper is Sound we must find evidence of this same thing in other elections under the same system, but unfortunately on the same day in Christchurch two other elections under P.R. took place and in those the results exploded the whole theory so confidently put forward. Before proceeding to them, however, we might ask the Otago Daily Tinies why, if the elector generally began at the top of the list, Mr J. W. Beanland headed the Citizens candidates with 1733, with Mr C. P. Agar over 300 votes behind? This one fact is enough to shatter the theory. But we also have the fact that Mr E. H. Andrews was ninth and that Mr A. W. Beaven was below Mr McKellar, while a Mr Williams led Mr Andrews. It should also be noted that Messrs Beanland and Agar were the two most prominent men on the Citizens’ ticket and that out of fifteen Citizen candidates, six had names beginning with “A” or “B.” On the Labour ticket we find Messrs Archer and Armstrong, the two strongest men on the ticket, leading and then Mr Howard beating candidates whose names would be above his on the ballot paper. Among the Independents, Mr W. H. Winsor, who would be low on the ballot paper, leads by a big margin, and actually was seventh in thq entire field ir, the matter of first-choice preferences. The first nine candidates in first choices and the first nine names in alphabetical order on the ballot papers were as follows: Votes. Ballot Paper Archer (L) Agar (C) Armstrong (L) Anderson (C) I Beanland (C) Anderson (C) Agar (C) Andrews (C) Anderson (C) Archer (L) Howard (L) Armstrong (L) Winsor (I) Beanland (C) Anderson (C) Beaven (C) McKellar (C) Carr (L) Beaven (C) Charters (C) Turning to the Hospital Board election under P.R., we find the Otago Daily Times again rudely buffetted. Mr Archer certainly led, but according to the Dunedin theory Mr Baty should have been in the forefront of the Citizens’ ticket, instead of which Dr. Fenwick got the highest number of votes, with Mrs Herbert and Mr Otley next. But the Harbour Board contest was also under Proportional Representation and yet Mr Holland headed Mr Hayward, and Dr. Thacker led Mr Scott on the same ticket, while Mr Howard outstripped Mr Harker. These things lead us to the conclusion that the explanation which the Otago Daily Times says is so very plain, ceases to be so when all the facts are known. They suggest to us that the prominence and popularity of the candidate has the greatest influence under P.R., just as it has under any other system. The Dunedin journal’s argument is very old, but never before has one town provided such emphatic evidence for the discomfiture of the propounders of it. The Christchurch Press found a new argument in the number of informal votes cast in the elections. There were three systems at work and in two of them the use of figures did not necessarily make the paper invalid, and yet the toll of informal papers was as follows: Total Votes Invalid Mayoralty .... 18,707 476 Council 17,711 1378 Hospital Board .. 17,488 1593 Harbour Board .. 13,344 830 Concert Hall Poll 11,136 1099 For the Mayoralty the elector marked his choice with a cross, and in the Concert Hall issue he had to strike out the line he did not wish to support. The other three contests were Under P.R. The Christchurch Press, scanning these figures, admits that the variety of systems caused confusion, and winds up by saying that there should be uniformity and, therefore, no Proportional Representation. The Christchurch contest was interesting, but it would certainly have attracted little attention if our two august contemporaries had not attempted to use it for a.n attack on a reform which has withstood all assaults successfully, and is now held back only by party considerations.