YESTERDAY'S ELECTION.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 10235, 18 August 1911, Page 3

YESTERDAY'S ELECTION.

FURTHER DETAILS OF THE CONTEST.

| Yesterday's contest -in Cliristchurch I North is vigorously discussed in the city to-day. As usual, scores of " men in the street " are met with who claim to have predicted that the successful candidate would have a majority of over 500, but whose voices, strangely enough, wero not heard yesterday when the issue was undecided. Mr Isitt has heen deluged with congratulations, large numbers coming through the telegraph office from other centres in New Zealand, notably from Wellington, where the election created much interest amongst the country's representatives. Tt was ascertained to-day that 10,41(r electors were on the roll, and as 6920 voted, the polling, as expected, was fairly heavy, especially for a by-elec-tion. The figures afford evidence or the strenuous character of the contest and the spirit with' which the candidates and their friends took part in it. There was a good deal of complaint yesterday* and there is also some today, in regard to persons not being allowed to vote. It is stated that large numbers who fully believed that they were entitled to vote were turnd away without being allowed to exercise tlio privilege. Mr J. H. Newlyn, the returning officer, explained this morning that most of these cases could be explained by the system of transferring electors from one roll to another on account of their change of residence to another electorate. Many persons who voted in Cliristchurch North at last election have removed to other parts of the city. The returning officers in other electorates have informed Mr Newlyn that these persons had been placed on their rolls, and Mr Newlyn in consequence of that, information, struck their names off his roll. _ Of course, they had no right to claim a vote in Cliristchurch North, but many of them seemed to be under an impression that they could do so at yesterday's election and vote in their new electorates at the general election at the end of this year. They did not seem to realise that the fact of their applving to he transferred to another roll disqualified them as far as Christcliurch North is concerned. As a matter of fact, it is stated that several applications for transfers were sent to the returning officer two days after the roll had been closed by the issuing of the writ. It is presumed that the persons who made those applications voted, although in the ordinary course their names wight to have been struck out. Transfers certainly were the principal cause of an irritation that may have been caused yesterday. Besides that, the election came very suddenly upon the returning officer, and at a very inopportune time. Hardly a Vreck elapsed between Mr Taylor's death and the issue of the writ ; and, as Mr Newlyn and his staff were engaged on their field work, ascertaining what electors had left the district, and whether those who did not vote at last election and had not applied for registration again were still "qualified, efforts to trace electors could not be made as searchingly as if sufficient time was available. It is the practice to endeavour to ascertain the place of residence of electors who failed to vote at the previous election. and to inquire if they wish to be enrolled again. The duty of enrolment, however, rests with each individual elector, who enn ascertain in a few minutes whether his or her name is on the roll.

THE SECRECY OF THE BALLOT. The new method of dealing with the ballot papers, used for tho first time yesterday, has given rise to wrong impressions. Ballot papers are no longer gummed and sealed aft&r voters have marked them: they arc simply folded up and placed in the ballot box. A local journal, criticising this method this morning, remarks: "It is therefore possible for the returning officer and scrutineers in counting the papers to see both the number afld the way in which the paper is marked, and, although it is hardly likely that they would be able'to compare tho two in the hurry of counting, the absolute secrecy of tho ballot is not so carefully preserved by this plan as it ought to be. The system previously adopted was to fold over the corner of the paper on which the number was marked and seal it down, so that tho number could not afterwards be seen without breaking the seal. This plan certainly ought to be followed in all elections."

As a matter ol' fact.- the secrecy of the ballot is preserved just as well under the new method as it was under the old one. The ballot papers are printed in blocks. They have a perforated line front top to bottom, as in the case of a book of blank cheques. The papers arc numbered consecutively on both ballot paper and butt, and the returning officer's stamp, bearing the number of the booth in duplicate, is impressed across the perforation, so that part appears on the ballot paper and part on the butt. The ("lector's roll number is written on the. butt only. The paper is then torn down the perforated line, the voter taking the ballot paper and the clerk retaining the butt The ballot paper is not gummed or sealed, but it does not bear the elector's roll number, which is only on the butt, and, therefore, nobody who sees the ballot paper has any means of ascertaining by whom it was marker!. The method, on the other hand, enables the returning officer to effectually check duplicate voting.