THE LICENSING POLL.

Stratford Evening Post, Volume XXXII, Issue 1, 11 December 1911, Page 5

THE LICENSING POLL.

A REVIEW OF THE POSITION

(To the Editor “Stratford Post.”) Sir, —Now thht the battle of the Licensing polls is over, and the dust of the conllict is settling somewhat, allow me to comment on sonic of the interesting features of the returns. For many years the trade has existed in this electorate on a minority vote, and the latest poll has not changed that condition—only 2U votes dffierence in the majority for No-license in ' tho last two polls. The fears of many, that bringing in the National issue would have an effect against the vote for local option have to some extent been realised, as is shown by the fact that of the vote the No-licenso party gained 350 as against the Trade’s 370. On the other hand the vote for National Prohibition is, according to the figures published in the “Post, only seven short of the required threefifths, the totals being for prohibition 3266 as against 2189—a majority ci 1077 in favour of prohibition. Surely this majority means, from whatever point of view it is taken, a very prevalent dissatisfaction with thetracle, and a very wide-spread desire to dig out by the roots rather than prune of a branch here and there. It has been claimed in other parts, and probably will be here, that the vote for prohibition does not represent a majority of those on the roll. On every roll there is always a percentage of names of persons who have left the Dominion (temporarily or otherwise), some who have died prior to tho poll being taken or who are too sick to record their votes, some who aro compelled for Various reasons to leave the electorate where they are enrolled after' the writs are issued. It cannot bo claimed that either side have a majority of these cases nor of that other class (fortunately a small one) who, by inadvertence or their own carelessness, have been left off the roll.

When all these considerations are taken into account, it can justly be claimed that the 80 per cent, of voters, approximately, who record their votes fairly reflect public opinions. On the Stratford roll there are 7174 numbers, but the registrar has, for different reasons, published a _ list of GlB names whose votes were disallowed, so that the net number entitled to voto was 6556. Of this number 5155 valid votes were cast. ■ The number of informal votes has not yet been published, but it is reasonable to assume that they wore in the same proportion, pro and .con, as the valid votes, and that being so, a majority of. those persons entitled to vote declared in favour of prohibition. Look at the figures from another point view, and we will, for the sake of making a comparison, assume that every person whose vote was declared informal was in favour of , the trade, that_every person too till to vote was also in favour of continuance; that every one absent (and without a voting permit) from the. electorate would have voted against prohibition, and that the, 70 absent voters with, permits thought likewise—and the most ardent advocate for ,the trade will hardly ,mak,e such a have the extraordinary fact,.that ahj; these classes added to the 2189- .wlio,voted against; prohibition only.totaj 24; more .votes ;thnn the prohibition,,.vo,to. ~ t I.- -.,. And now M :sif,,:if. space is available, I should like to write something about the three-fifths majority. Those who are most anxious for the prohibition reform naturally desire to have a substantial public that form. But few of those who take part in this matter realise what a three-fifths majority really means. To get an idea of what this majority imposes, take ty, out. ( of the political at-, mosphere:,altogether.• Let ,us imagine, that our, electorate ,is, a limited liability company with shares to correspond to the numberbf.yotes,possilbe to puli,, i.e., 6550.' Say that a, portion is vacant on the staff of this company, and there are,2,applicants for the position. The directors decide that tuo applicants, may canvass for votes and that the one who obtains threc-fifcns of a majority over the other shall have the position. At the next meeting of directors, one applicant, Mr A. comes forward with 2028 votes, Mr B. with 2724. The directors decided

that, as Mr B. was .428 votes short of the three-fifths, the appointment was postponed. (You will notice that the figures used are* exactly those of the local option poll in this electorate.) Mr B. now set to work, obtained 428 votes, and appeared before the directors with a triumphant smile. “Yes,” said the chairman, “you have obtained the 428 votes, but don’t you see that you have added that many to the total number, and now you are 255 short of the three-fifths majority r” ' Rather disgusted, but undismayed, Mr B. goes away and obtains the 255. The same answer awaits him—he has added 255 to the total and is now 153 short- of ; the required majority. He iobtains the 153, and he is now 90 short; he gets the 90, and is 64 short; gets the .64, and is now 39 short; gets the 39, and is 21 short; gets the 21, and is 12 short; gets the_l2, and is now 8 short; gets 8, is 5 short; gets 5, now 3 short; and then he dies. Bo you wonder ? The figures are worked out on the assumption that Mr A.’s figures remain the same. What would be said of a company which adopted such a system? Yet that is exactly the position with regard to the Licensing poll in this electorate. Mr A. represents the trade, and Mr B. the No-liconse section, and the figures are those of last Thursday’s returns. Will anyone deny that this is an extraordinary position? The No-license Party in tins electorate is 428 votes short of the required number, and to get that 428 we have to poll 1078, making the total number of votes polled come within 26 of the actual number on the roll. If in the meantime the liquor side added 16 votes only, it would be impossible, even if every vote on theroll was recorded, to obtain No-liccnse. This aspect of the question will prove, I think, to reasonable people, that the three-fifths majority needs amendment. The outstanding feature of the poll throughout the Dominion is that the vote shows conclusively that the traffic must cease, not here and there and partially—as under Nolicense—but universally and absolutely. Thanking you for the valuable space you have allowed me to occupy, —I am, etc., j. McAlister.