The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. "Luceo Non Uro.” WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1934. INEFFECTUAL PLEAS

Southland Times, Issue 22419, 5 September 1934, Page 6

The Southland Times. PUBLISHED EVERY MORNING. "Luceo Non Uro.” WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 5, 1934. INEFFECTUAL PLEAS

None of the political parties will evince enthusiasm in Mr Jull’s electoral proposals, because they are too keen to stick to the lottery of the first-past-the-post system, under which large majorities can be secured, with a consequential party security lasting over the term of Parliament. The fact that the House is not a reflection of the incidence of political opinion in the country does not matter so much as the opportunities for cutthroat contests in which minority representation has as good a chance as the representation of the majority. Mr Jull’s proposal has less chance than most because it is double-barrelled, providing Proportional Representation for the urban constituencies and Preferential Voting in the rural electorates. The Labour Party will object at once, because it will see that such a scheme would deprive it of the advantages it now holds in the big cities, without providing any compensating benefits in the country seats. From a party viewpoint it would be absurd to accept such a plan, and the Labour Party will not be caught. Mr Jull may argue that the country quota must be preserved, but the late James McCombs produced a scheme, which he embodied in a Bill, giving Proportional Representation to the Dominion and preserving the country quota. That measure went before the House but it did not get very far, and the death of Mr McCombs has left the country without its most ardent and most skilled advocate of Proportional Representation. All the parties have put Proportional Representation in their election programmes —Reformers, United and Labour —but it has always been put forward by a party that was “out,” and has been forgotten by a party when it was “in.” Certainly Mi’ Massey secured the passage of a law applying it to the Legislative Council, but the law never operated, and it is now in the dust-heap along with other evidence of lost causes. The United Party discarded Proportional Representation as soon as it reached the Treasury Benches, and events in Christchurch suggest that the Labour Party will show no more enthusiasm for it if the party attains to power. Most of the arguments put up against the adoption of this electorial reform are nonsensical and are designed to cover the real one: that each party opposing it considers it will not enhance the chances of the party at the polls. But one of the most absurd is the plea that too much time is required for the counting. This was put forward seriously in Christchurch, as if the quick posting of returns were of greater value than the scientific allocation of the seats in the City Council. Experience has shown that it neither smashes nor introduces the party system, and yet it will be accused of doing both. Proportional Representation does not destroy the local interest in members, nor, unfortunately, does it eliminate parochialism; but it does do away with overwhelming majorities, which, in modern times, are not justified by the divisions in the voting, and this is the basis of the objections by the political leaders, who prefer a majority large enough to permit them to deal firmly with any private members showing signs of independence. Mr Jull’s proposal was presented in the debate on the Financial Statement, but even if any other members decide to take any notice of it, there is small hope of anything being done. Those who advocate Proportional Representation are voices crying in the wilderness, and they are vocal when they are in the political wilderness. The party that wins prefers the haphazard method which gave it victory, and so the old unscientific method persists, with its large swings and its Parliaments that are not actually representative of political opinion in the country.