WELLINGTON TOPICS.

Waikato Times, Volume 107, Issue 17983, 31 March 1930, Page 9

WELLINGTON TOPICS.

WOULD-BE REFORMER.

RENOUNCES INDEPENDENCE. (Special Correspondent.) WELLINGTON, Saturday. The local -papers' arc giving n rood deal of prominence to the emphasis with which Mr ii. R. Jenkins, me kuc Independent-United representative of the Parnell Electorate in the House of Representatives, is renouncing both independence and unity. Such information as is available from Auckland does not suggest ttiat the electors of Parnell are specially eager to have Mr Jenkins as their representative in the House for a second time, and his selection as the Reform candidate would not be regarded here as a particularly happy development for Hie party. Two Parties Only. The Evening Post seems to have as great, a dislike to the “three-party system” as Mr Jenkins himself has, and no greater love for the Labour party. “Fusion means amalgamation,” it says, “not the swallowing of one party by the other. We see no insuperable obstacle to amalgamation, hut there are differences and difllcultics to be overcome. These must be removed by negotiation and by reason. Diehard obstinacy on either side must be avoided at all costs. Mr Jenkins’s action must not be misinterpreted as the beginning of a wholesale surrender warranting renewed diehard opposition to negotiatiate'd fusion." No doubt the evening paper made up its mind.on this point, years ago, but Mr Jenkins’ aversion to more than two parties seems to have developed no longer ago Ilian the day 10 months ago when Sir Joseph Ward' announced the names of his colleagues in the Ministry. Perhaps if his own name had appeared on ihe list Mr Jenkins would have managed to reconcile himself to the threeparty .system. Electoral Methods. Curiously enough the Evening Post last night gave a place in its leader page to a very interesting article in which the writer suggests that as a last resort proportional representation might be introduced for the destruction of the threeparty system. “If through the aggressiveness of Labour and the purblind altitude of oilier politicians,” this authority writes, “an election should be forced and leave no party with a clear majority over the whole House, then, perhaps the two moderate parties might at last be forced to the wisdom of joining forces so that we might speedily return to the sane two-party system, or else they might at last unite io demand reform of the electoral system, either by the adoption of proportional representation or preferential voting.” The writer does not make it quite clear as to what uses he would apply proportional representation or preferential voting, but it is quite certain neither of these methods of voting would secure the two-party system. Proportional Representation. This authority refers to proportional representation and .preferential voting ; as if they both were panaceas for the multiplication of parties. This certainly is not the case in regard to pro- 1 porlional representation, which would give to all the parties of any considerable dimensions, as its title implies,, exactly the measure of representation to which they were entitled bf their numbers. Roughly speaking, had proportional representation with the Dominion as one constituency been in force at the last general election Reform with 267,079 votes would have j secured 28 seats; United with 245,474 j votes 26 seals; Labour with 213,621 i votes 20; and “Others,” of whom the present Speaker was the only genuine j “Independent,” with 19,217 votes, two. ! It will be seen from these figures that the three-party system would have been by no means extinguished by proportional representation, even if applied on this wide scale, but it would have given io the country an absolute proportional representation of ihe j wishes of the electors. I