PREFERENTIAL VOTING

Timaru Herald, Volume CXXXVII, Issue 19836, 27 June 1934, Page 4

PREFERENTIAL VOTING

LEGION’S ADVOCACY OUTLINE OF PROPOSED BILL Speaking at a meeting of the New Zealand Legion at Otaki, Mr Will Appleton of Wellington dealt with the system of preferential voting as advocated by the Legion which has drafted a proposed Bill on the subject. The principle adopted he said was that known as the Nanson-Hogben system and had stood the test of actual experience in the Victoria University Council elections. The plan was mathematically perfect, said Mr Appleton, and enabled all voters to have proper representation, which was impossible under the existing flrst-past-the-post method or under some of the other systems which had been advocated. The speaker pointed out that preferential voting should not be confused with proportional representation which had been tried in the Christchurch Municipal elections and apparently found wanting, as those who had advocated the measure now wished it no be repealed. Mr Appleton illustrated the system advocated by the Legion and explamed that it was scientifically correct. Assuming there were three candidates and 36 votes, said the speaker, the ballot papers would be marked in the order of preference one to three. Tf the votes were tabulated giving the order Smith No. 1, Jones No. 2, and Robertson No. 3, in 13 papers; Robertson No. 1, Jones No. 2, and Smith Nr. 3, in 12 papers; and Jones No. Robertson No. 2 and Smith No. 3 in 11 papers, it would be found that the fvst trial table gave this result:—

Robertson and Smiti. did not exceed tne trial totals and were rejected. Jones was elected because he was the most preferred candidate. Twenty-four voters preferred Jcnes to Robertson, while only 12 voters preferred Robertson to him. In regard to Smith ’-3 voters preferred Jones and only 13 preferred Smith to Jones. In the flrst-past-the-post system Smith would have been elected on a minority vote. Mr Appleton explained that all candidates whose trial totals at the first count were greater than the average of all the trial totals, should have columns and rows assigned to them on a second table and the number of preferences over the other should be ascertained and entered in the appropriate place in the table. The same procedure would be followed as in the first count and those candidates, whose trial totals were not greater than the average of all the trial totals, would be rejected. If only one candidate »n this second count had a trial total greater than the average of all the trial totals, he would be elected, but should it happen that more than one candidate had a trial total at the second count greater than tl- - average oi all the trial totals, then a third count would have to be ta'- n and so on, until only one candidate had a trial total greater than the average. Should it happen in the final count that two or more candidates had equal totals the matter would be decided r.y the Returning Officer by lot. In the Legion's Bill it is provided that if in the first count the trial total of any candidate is less than half the trial total of the candidate wno is highest on the first cc— * such unsuccessful candidate' shall forfeit his deposit. It is suggested that the deposit for Parliamentary Elections in future should not be less than £2O to prevent an excessive number of candidates and to discourage the standing of men who are simply “dummies.”

i - ou uiai touic gave uin icsuit. Jones. Robertson. Smith Preferred to Jones .. — 12 13 Robertson .. 24 — 13 Smith .. 23 23 — Trial totals 47 35 26 Average of all trial totals: 47 35 26 108 divided by 3-36.