VOTING SYSTEM

Southland Times, Issue 25385, 12 September 1935, Page 6

VOTING SYSTEM

CHANGE ADVOCATED GROUPS OF MEMBERS IN CITIES VARIOUS METHODS (From Our Parliamentary Reporter.) Wellington, September 11. The need for some change in the methods of voting was advocated in the House of Representatives this afternoon by Mr A. E. Jull, who advocated a system of preferential voting in rural districts and proportional representation in the cities, or a joint system. Mr Jull said it had been put up to the Government that there should be preferential voting introduced in the coming election, but the Prime Minister had indicated there would be no interference with the existing system. Mr A. J. Stallworthy: What a pity. Mr Jull said that a year ago he had mentioned the matter of electoral reform and the proposal he had made then he intended to elaborate now. The first-past-the-post system had proved more objectionable than any of the others though it seemed to appeal to a sporting people. The question was whether there should be a preferential system or a proportional system, or a combination of both. In the preferential voting system in a great many cases where there were four’ or five candidates for one seat the party had advised its supporters to give their second preferences to the weakest candidate, so as to prevent the second strongest man from getting in. Mr Stallworthy: Are you in favour of compulsory preferences? Mr Jull: We should be made to toe the line. It is our responsibility to ask a man to spend some of his time voting once every four years. It is not asking much of him. Local Bodies. He went on to say that to-day there were two systems operating in local body elections. In the city there was an election of the mayor and council over the whole city and in the country districts there was the riding system. He advocated last year and he was doing so again that there should be a joint method universal system. In the rural districts they had a 28 per cent, artificial addition to the population, and with a straightout system they would lose that quota. There was no reason in the world why the cities should not have proportional representation with groups of five members. Mr E. J. Howard: Heads you lose, tails we win. Mr Jull: Why should we carve up the cities for the purposes of a Parliamentary election when we do not do so for their own local elections? Mr D. G. Sullivan:-Try it on., Mr Jull: In the hon. member’s city they did try it on. They had proportional representation once, and if they had retained it he might have had a Labour majority. He declared that the big commercial interest in a city were denied access to the House and their chief means of voicing any objection to legislation were through the Chambers of Commerce and similar bodies. Any person who had strong views on commercial matters, unless he were a good political side-stepper, could not get in. If it was the idea of the House that it should be the representative of people it was denying that right to important commercial sections through single electorates in the cities. Mr A. Harris: Pure nonsense. Mr Jull added that it was necessary, if the position were to be satisfactory, to have groups of five men in the cities. He quoted the view of an English political authority who favoured preferential voting in rural areas and proportional representation in cities.