VOTE-SPLITTING CAN BE AVOIDED.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 18468, 21 May 1928, Page 4

VOTE-SPLITTING CAN BE AVOIDED.

REMEDY IN HANDS OF GOVERNMENT, SAYS MR FORBES. Defending the right of the United Party to nominate candidates for as many seats as it might decide to conctjw at the general election. this yeai, the acting-leader. Mr George Forbes, I*l.ir., declared this morning that a charge of vote-splitting made against the party could have no force whatever because the remedy for such a position was entirely in the hands of the Government. If the Government was sincere in wishing to avoid vote-splitting at the election it was in its power to introduce a measure of electoral reform providing for the preferential system of voting. “ When the Reform Government makes that charge against us,” said Mr Forbes, “ it does so with the object of narrowing down the choice of electors to its own candidates as against the Labour candidates, and that is a position that will not be tolerated. If there ,c any complaint about the splitting of votes the responsibilit) r must be laid entirely at the door of the Government.” With regard to the Lyttelton elector? ate, Mr Forbes said he understood that the Reform Party was now getting ready to select a candidate, although the United Party had already announced its candidate for the seat. Tt.e electorate had never been represented by a Reform member but was represented by a Liberal for many years. He was quite satisfied that the United Party candidate would have a much better chance of winning the seat from Labour than any candidate the Reform Party might put up. If a Reform candidate were brought out for the seat and there was a cry about the splitting of votes that charge could not be levelled against the United Party.

A distinct pledge was given by the Reform Government, when it took office in 1912, and repealed the Second Ballot Act, which was more or less a clumsy method of avoiding votesplitting, that it would substitute a better and more workable system. It had failed to honour that pledge, and had persistently refused to do anything in the matter. Mr Forbes said that the United Party would have candidates for practically all the Christchurch seats, and its prospects were particularly bright. The interest, of the public had been aroused, and no difficulty was being experienced in obtaining good candidates. Candidates for several other Christchurch seats w'ould be announced in the course of a few T days. Of the fifteen candidates selected for North Island seats up to the present, said Mr Forbes, ten had never contested a Parliamentary election before. The Reform Party was backing the old candidates, and if the Government were again successful at the elections, which he thought was impossible, there would be practically no change in the personnel of the party. In fact the Reform candidates were being tied up tighter, the Hon A. D. M’Leod having stated recently that they would not receive official support unless they undertook to support the Government in crucial divisions. “One wonders what Mr M’Leod meant,” remarked Mr Forbes. “Does he regard a division on the licensing question as a ‘crucial division,’ and will the Reform candidates be bound by a signed pledge? We know that the Labour members are bound by an agreement, and evidently that is going to be the position of the Reform Party. Mr Forbes stated that the United Party would allow its members a considerable amount of freedom in regard to public questions. The party was selecting candidates of ability, and w'ould welcome their assistance in solving questions. It did not want dummies.