The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1927. INFORMAL VOTES

Southland Times, Issue 20172, 7 May 1927, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. Luceo Non Uro. SATURDAY, MAY 7, 1927. INFORMAL VOTES

The laudable attempt to remove the chances of uncertainty in determining the voters’ intentions seems to have resulted in an increase in the number of informal votes, and as these have been most strikingly large where the elector had a big list to deal with the cause of the mistakes must be held to be the method of marking the paper. Some of the Returning Officers have stated that the error most frequently made was in leaving more than the number of names required unscored. Where the voter has to cast his ballot for a dozen or more councillors he can very easily leave unscored one more name than the paper requires, and it is then impossible to say which of the candidates must be deprived of the vote. To throw away the whole paper as informal is the only course possible. Evidently the trouble has been brought about by the system of striking out the names of those for whom the elector does not wish to vote, instead of using the more positive method of putting a cross opposite the name of the candidate the voter favours. The “cross” system, of course, is not without weakness. There have been many cases where the position of the cross has failed to show definitely the voter’s intention, but the mistakes made under this system are infinitesimal in comparison with the extraordinary figures disclosed in the recent municipal contests in various parte of the Dominion. Where the voting is close these errors are peculiarly unfortunate, because (here is a strange dislike for recounts. Popular opinion, unreasonably it seems to us, sete against the candidate who seeks an official examination to make sure that the Returning Officers have not credited any votes incorrectly or have rejected as invalid votes which clearly show the elector’s wishes. The large percentage of informal votes reported in the municipal elections make it necessary that the system should be overhauled again. There are many features of the American electoral system that we do not wish to copy, but it should be noted that the American voter, when he goes to the polling booth often has to deal with more issues and candidates in one election than the New Zealander will find before him in twenty years. In addition, it has to be remembered that in the United States there are thousands of naturalised voters who must have ». hazy idea of the voting process. Various devices have been introduced to assist the elector to get over these difficulties, among them block voting based on the use of well-known party brands. In the United States the party machines are recognised as part of the political system and block voting is encouraged ; but even where the block voting is not used the “cross” is retained as the best and surest method of discovering the voter’s wishes. The “cross” opposite the name or issue the elector favours is the universal method, and it seems to us that if uniformity is to be obtained this process must be copied and used for all contests. Confusion has developed because differing methods have been recognised, but it is quite clear that in the municipal contests where multiple voting is required the “striking out” process gives too big an opening for error to be allowed to continue. Doubtless objections will be raised, but none of these will be based on the belief that the chances of mistakes being made will be increased, and that, after all, is the one point which should weigh with the legislature when it takes up this matter.