UNIFORM VOTING PAPERS.

Waipa Post, Volume 31, Issue 1765, 1 June 1926, Page 4

UNIFORM VOTING PAPERS.

WE had intended just after the recent County elections to comment on the subject of voting papers and the nsi£d for uniformity, with a view to minimising the informal votes cast. It is evident that in some of the other districts there were also an undue perci ntage of invalid voting papers, judging by comments in some of our contemporaries. Instead, of a returning officer being allowed to issue a voting paper that is so perfectly plain that all who run may read, the said paper has to be according to the schedule. We do not mean to say that an elector with average intelligence could not understand any of the papers provided, but nevertheless there are always a number ot informal votes and these are mostly through persons striking out names instead of putting crosses in the spaces provided or vice versa. If all voting papers were uniform this would, not happen. The natural thing for a voter to do is to strike out the names of the candidates he does not want, as in a parliamentary election. But when it comes to a municipal or county election tlie elector must not cross out the name of the candidate he rejects, but put a cross opposite those he wants. Why the difference? Should a local body election follow closely upon a parliamentary election quite a number of voters would not read the instructions on the local body voting paper but strike out the names of the unwanted candidate as in the parliamentary election. Thera seems to 1: e no reason for not making all the voting papers uniform. Moreover, the simpler form is cheaper to print.