The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1911. THE SECOND BALLOT.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXI, Issue 99, 9 December 1911, Page 4

The Stratford Evening Post WITH WHICH IS INCORPORATED THE EGMONT SETTLER. SATURDAY, DECEMBER 9, 1911. THE SECOND BALLOT.

That the second-ballot system is not nearly a perfect one is generally admitted, though possibly from some viewpoints it may have its advantages over the old system of electing the candidate polling the greatest number of votes. Mr John H, Humphreys recently published a test-book setting forth the defects of the second ballot when dealing with the different methods of voting in vogue. The book is entitled “Proportional Representation,” and is an interesting work, it contrasts the working of tlie second ballot, the alternative vote, and proportional representation, and describes the systems of election which obtain in several Continental countries, in Tasmania, in West Australia and in South Africa. The system of second ballots is condemned, because it “not only deprives hn - ge sections ol the electorate of representation, but the very conditions which produce this result bring Parliamentary institutions into still further disrepute.” It is used in France, and M. Yves Guyot asserts that “the second ballots give rise to detestable bargainings which obliterate all political sense in the electors. “The preferential or alternative vote which prevails in Queensland and Western Australia, is stated to lie much better, because only one election is necessary. The elector marks the candidate in the order in which ho prefers them, and it no candidate has an absolute majority, the alternative votes are added until one candidate has an absolute majority, whereupon he is declared elected. It is affirmed that the most scientific method of ensuring that Parliament should exactly reflect the views of the country is proportional representation. ■ Under this system there must be large constituencies returning several members, instead of electorates each returning one member. The elector marks the candidates 1,2, 3, etc., in the order of preference, and if his favourite candidate receives more votes than arc necessary to secure his election, the surplus votes are transferred in the manner indicated by the elector. On the other hand, if his candidate receives so few as to have no chance of election, his votes are transferred to other candidates, in accordance ivith the wish signified by the elector in marking the paper. The drawback to the scheme is considered bv some authorities to be its tendency to multiply groups in Parliament, in-

stead of keeping broadly to the twoparty system. Hut, as Lord Ccnitney, of Penwith, points out in tfie introduction to this I took, the prosi hi electoral machinery does not satisfy conditions of stable equilibrium, and lie argues, that “it is only when the groups in the Legislature represent in faithful proportion bodies of convinced adherents, returning them as their representatives, that such groups become stong enough to restore Parliamentay efficiency, and to combine in the maintenance of a stable Administra lion.” Proport iona I represent a i ion has been adopted in Denmark, Switzerland. Helginm, Finland, Sweden, Tasmania and South Africa (for the ■ lection of the Semite and of the Transvaal municipalities).