PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

Southland Times, Issue 18963, 9 June 1923, Page 8

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.

To the Editor. Sir, —From time to time you publish articles favouring proportional representation as the ideal system of voting in Parliamentary elections, and there can be little doubt that sooner or later it is going to be a prominent question in politics. For some years I have been trying to get information as to what it is, and how it is going to be applied, but though I have asked several, who I thought would be able to explain its principles and application, I have so far been unable to get the information desired. I would, therefore, suggest that some educational work is desirable before any effort is made to place such an important measure on the Statute Book.

As will be remembered by many, at the election before Mr Massey assumed the reins of office, proportional representation was one of the principal planks in his plat-

form, but when he got into power he dropped it, on the ground, if I remember rightly; that for the Lower House at all events, it is unworkable. Since then both the other parties have clamoured for it. First of all, let us understand just what it really is. It is, as I understand, a proportion of parties which is proposed, or is it as suggested in a booklet entitled “The Elements of Reconstruction,” published originally in the Times (London), which suggests “vocational proportion” as the best system of voting? One thing which you have consistently condemned for many years has been the partnership which seems to have become part and parcel of our political system, a trait in our politics which H. G. Wells has in one of his books, very aptly described as' “The Disease of Parliaments,” a trait which, to my mind, is utterly destructive of true representative Government and, what seems strange to me, is that Mr Wells prescribes proportional representation as the cure for that disease, and you, yourself, favour that system, though opposing partizanship; as it seems to me that the effect would be to rivet the shackles of Party domination more firmly than ever. As a loyal citizen, my only desire in writing this is to get information for myself and others so that when the time conies I may be able to throw the weight of my vote and influence on the right side. Let me, therefore, explain some of the difficulties which occur to me. First, there is the size of the electorate. The truest representation would, of course, be one electorate for the whole Dominion. Next to that would be one for the north and another for the south. Would the number of members be as at present, or would they be considerably reduced ? Let us suppose that the number is reduced to 40, just half the present House, and, for the sake of argument, let us suppose that 15 are allocated to the South and 25 to the North. There are three main parties in the House. To get a correct proportion each would nominate a candidate to represent each seat. This would supply 45 candidates for the South and 75 for the North. Would it be possible for the average voter to choose intelligently the men of greatest abilities? Would not the Party ticket be almost universally the only guide? And would not the Party leaders confine their approval to those men or women who would pledge themselves to support those leaders through thick and thin. I am, perhaps, trespassing too much upon your space, and will, therefore, close for the present. I am, etc., J.M. Brown vale, Ohai, 6/6/23.