VOTING SYSTEM REVEALS FLAWS

Sun (Auckland), Volume 1, Issue 34, 3 May 1927, Page 1

VOTING SYSTEM REVEALS FLAWS

OFFICIALS’ CRITICAL

HUGE INFORMAL TOTAL DISFRANCHISES 14 PER CENT. The official count of the votes cast in the Auckland City Council election discloses the fact that over 3,000 votes, or about 14 per cent, of the total votes cast, were informal. In contradistinction, in the mayoralty vote only a fraction over 1 per cent, of votes was informal. “This bears out what I reported to the council last August,” remarked the returning officer, Mr. P. F. Notley, to a SUN reporter this morning, ‘‘when I stated that the change from putting a cross against the candidate it was desired to vote for, to crossing out those it was not desired to vote for, would greatly increase the work, the expense, and the number of informal votes. ‘‘The new system may be suitable for small local bodies dealing with a small number of candidates, but it is certainly not suitable for the four main cities. It is far simpler for the voter to put in twenty-one crosses against those he or she desires to vote for than to cross out 40 names, and be sure of only leaving 21 or fewer. “I do not like the numbering system, because voters usually wander all over the sheet, and many of them finally jump one of their numbers and mess the whole thing up. “It is obvious that the new system is quite useless, and I think the Act will have to be amended, and the local authority given power to decide which system shall be used.” Mentioning the “cross” system Mr. Notley said it was not always successful. He recollected one person who had expressed a misunderstanding and a preference that led to placing nearly twenty-one crosses against one name, apparently under the impression that there were twenty-one votes available to each person—to be used as desired.

“WORSE METHOD” A CHRISTCHURCH VIEW NUMBERING FAVOURED (Special to THE SUN. ) CHRISTCHURCH, To-day. The returning officer, Mr. Albert Freeman, finds much against the new voting system of crossing out the names of candidates voted against. From his point of view it is the worst method of voting. “The system stands condemned out of its own mouth as it were,” he told a SUN man to-day. It is a negative form of voting and. although the principle is good in practice it is a failure, in a case where there are only three or four names to be dealt with it is all right, but when there is a paper containing 34 names, and 16 or less have to be left in, it’s the very devil.” Four thonsnd voters is an unprecedented number to have invalidated their votes in the Christchurch elections. Weak obliterations and misdirected strokes of the pencil have slowed down the work of checking. Mr. Freeman suggested that a better method than crossing out would be for j the voters to place numerals opposite ! the names of those given votes. This, j would enable a voter to ascertain that no more than the number of councillors required had been voted for.