The Daily News FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1930. ELECTORAL REFORM.

Taranaki Daily News, 12 September 1930, Page 6

The Daily News FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 1930. ELECTORAL REFORM.

In both the Homeland and New Zealand the question of electoral reform has become a matter for" serious consideration. The growth of the Labour Party lias brought about a political position resulting in minority Governments and the practical disfranchisement of an appreciable number of the electors. So far, in neither country has an acceptable way out of the difficulty been forthcoming, though it has been convincingly proved that triangular electoral contests frequently fail to record the true verdict of the electors. Although virtually inevitable, it is hone the less to be deprecated that a matter of such importance should be approached in a party and not a national spirit, hence the failure of efforts to produce an acceptable scheme of reform. In the Old Country a special committee under the presidency of Lord Ullswater was set up to inquire into ‘this matter with a view to suggesting such remedies as might be thought advisable in order to secure justice all round. The committee, however, failed to produce any agreed scheme of electoral reform that wpuld bring about a reversion to the twqparty system, or even to submit a scheme that would act justly in the event of the continued existence of three or more parties. It is quite evident, however, that the voting of the committee followed strict party lilies, and that the Labour Party even went so far as to bargain its support of the alternative vote in return for > support in certain other matters with which the alternative vote had nothing to do. Commenting upon the failure, the Manchester Guardian points out that Liberals who failed to press for this reform when it was in their power cannot . now be hypercritical of the shortcomings of the other two parties. Politicians are mostly like that. The present system in England means that a Liberal vote has about a third of the value (for purposes of representation) of a vote for another party; it also means that half the members of the present House \ of Commons are returned on minority votes, and it further means that it is mathematically possible for the strongest party in the country not to be represented at all, and that only by a most improbable accident can the voting of the parties in the House even approximately reflect the strength of parties in the country. The pity of it is that such indefensible results are bound to follow under, the existing system so long as there are three parties. Apparently all that can be urged in defence of the present system is that in the course of time it may cure itself by the extinction of the middle party, and that it may be worth while putting-up with a good deal of temporary misrepresentation in order to attain the . simplicity and strength of government by two alternating parties. Such an argument is far - from convincing, mainly because it overlooks the fact that political realities are not altered by the changing of names—la view that has been specially emphasised in New Zealand politics. It has been contended that if a system is retained which forces Englishmen to divide themselves into two political camps, they must be divided somewhere about the political centre of gravity, and the two parties will then eventually form themselves, as they always have done, into those who may broadly be called Progressives and those who may broadly be called Conservatives. Assuming that could be done, how long would such an arrangement last? In these days moderate Labour is really advanced Liberalism, while normal Conservatism has come to mean progressive Liberalism, except in the matter of fiscal policy. It may be taken for granted that no party would relish losing its distinctiveness, and it may certainly be expected the Labour Party would never agree to such a course, though if its extreme wing obtained the upper hand of that party no doubt some sort of fusion would take place, and we should to uiueh Ike same

position as would have been reached if Labour, instead of asserting its independence had continued to work as a wing of the Liberal Party, though the two elements do not fuse readily, their origins and traditions being too different. It can certainly be claimed that each of the three parties has something valuable to icontribute to the political life of 1 the country as a whole. Whether on that account it is advisable to retain their distinct platforms is an open question, and therein is to be found the main barrier to electoral reform that woiild achieve the result of majority government without inflicting an injustice upon any section of the people. It is admittedly a difficult problem to solve, yet there is an insistent demand for an alteration for the better in our present “first past the post” system.