The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 17, 1921. ELECTORAL METHODS UP-TO-DATE.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17352, 17 May 1924, Page 8

The Star. SATURDAY, MAY 17, 1921. ELECTORAL METHODS UP-TO-DATE.

Vote the National ticket” is the translation of an Italian postmark which a correspondent has sent to the

Star lo show the lengths to which the Kascists will go to iurtiier their political ends. Nobody could imagine this advertising advantage being availed of in British elections, but it is not at all surprising in a country like Italy, where “ political influence ” would be a very milcl term to apply to the overawing ol' electors that has gone on in modern Italy for many years. L nder the single member system, which gave way in 1919 to proportional representation, no Italian Prime Minister ever lost a general election, and this rare evidence of electoral fidelity was due largely to tlio remarkable system of bribery and corruption by which the organs of local government were controlled. Therefore the use of the postmark by Mussolini, the man who declared that Fascism was prepared “ to pass again over the more or less decomposed corpse of the goddess Liberty,” would be quite a mild misuse of power. But, whatever may lie said of Italian election methods, there is evidence that recent importations of American ideas into the Old Country are in danger of creating a very objectionable, if not quite ns dangerous, situation in regard to elections there. lor instance, even American methods were surpassed in London in March, when Conservatives, Liberals, Independents and Labour fought with their coats oft to win the vacant Abbey division seat in Westminster. There were daily processions of motor-cars, the waving of Union Jacks, the noise of bugles and loud-speakers, cinema operators, heat, violence and self-advertisement. “We had,” says an English writer, “Mr Churchill (in picture) cerebrating in his committee rooms, the Churchill family, the Churchill children; Mr Churchill carrying cauliflowers in Covent Garden; Mr Churchill lunching in remote Soho; Mr Churchill, with always his ‘proud, glad smile’; the appeal by organised delirium. But some of the ‘ sob-stuff ’ introduced not only by his syndicated Press supporters, but also in newspapers which were neutral or hostile, was frankly nauseous. Such were ‘ Winnie ’ being warmly congratulated by old Gallipoli fighters; cries of ‘ God bless you, Mr Churchill’ from old soldiers; Mrs Churchill (for whom all will have sympathy), weeping, as she recounted the services her husband had done to the poor; Mr Churchill being thanked by tearful and grateful costermongers for having saved them from destruction; aged ladies kissing Mr Churchill’s hand; Mr Churchill’s little girl bearing the legend, ‘ You vote for my Daddy, and my Daddy will vote for you.’ No one can blame Sir Churchill for these—probably apocryphal-—gaffes, but they excite some feeling of disgust in the average voter’s mind.” The people of New Zealand must devoutly hope that they will never see electioneering methods of this kind, and in that connection it is rather unkind to suggest Mr Churchill as even a possible successor to Lord Jellicoe as Governor-General of New Zealand.