CHRISTCHURCH MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, 1917, HELD UNDER THE LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) ACT, 1914 (REPORT BY G. HOGBEN, Esq., C.M.G., ON THE).

Appendix to the Journals of the House of Representatives, 1917 Session I, H-41

H.—4l

1917. NEW ZEALAND.

CHRISTCHURCH MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, 1917, HELD UNDER THE LOCAL ELECTIONS (PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION) ACT, 1914 (REPORT BY G. HOGBEN, Esq., C.M.G., ON THE).

Laid on the Table of the House of Representatives by Leave.

Sir, Department of Internal Affairs, Wellington, 18th August, 1917. The last biennial general election of Councillors of the City of Christchurch being the first election held in New Zealand under a system of proportional representation, opportunity was taken to obtain from Mr. George Hogben, C.M.G-., M.A., F.G.S., late Director of Education, who was specially engaged by the Christchurch City Council to act in the capacity of Assistant Eeturning Officer, a report on the working of the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Act, 1914. The report, which contains much valuable information and several suggestions for amendments of the Act, with a view to its working more smoothly, is attached hereto. J. Hislop, Under-Secretary. The Hon. G\ W. Russell, Minister of Internal Affairs.

CHRISTCHURCH MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS, APRIL, 1917. Sir,— Wellington, 4th July, 1917. In reply to your request, I have the honour to report on the Christchurch municipal elections, 1917. In accordance with the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Act, 1914, and the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Amendment Act, 1915, the Christchurch City Council and the other local authorities concerned adopted the provisions of the principal Act for the elections of 1917. Accordingly, the elections of sixteen City Councillors, of four members of the Lyttelton Harbour Board, and of seven members of the North Canterbury Hospital and Charitable Aid Board were held on the 25th April last on the principle of proportional representation. The election of the Mayor of the City of Christchurch was held on the same day, the poll being conducted for all four elections at the same places, and by the same staff; but, of course, the principle of proportional representation did not apply in the case of the mayoral election, and the method of marking the voting-papers was different. The poll was, I believe, the heaviest on record for the City of Christchurch : 17,704 persons voted for the election of Mayor; 17,476 voting-papers were recorded for the election of City Councillors; 16,469 for the election of members of the Hospital Board; and 16,554 for the election of members of the Harbour Board. The rough results of the mayoral election and of the counting of the first-preference votes in the other three elections were forwarded from the forty-six polling-booths by telephone or by special messenger, and were announced by the Returning Officer on the evening of the poll. On the following day the scrutiny of the rolls, as directed by sections 8 and 9 of the Local Elections and Polls Amendment Act, 1913, was conducted, and occupied nearly the whole day ; so that the count of the votes (which could not be commenced until the completion of the scrutiny of the rolls) was practically not begun until the morning of Friday, the 27th April.

I—H. 41.

H.—4l

2

In order to acquaint the electors with the new method of voting a mock election for members of a supposed Imperial Cabinet had previously been held by two of the local newspapers, and by the courtesy of the proprietors and editors of the newspapers the voting-papers so obtained (over six thousand in number) were placed at our disposal for the purpose of holding a trial count, and thus giving the staff concerned a thorough acquaintance with their duties. This trial count achieved its purpose to a remarkable degree ; indeed, it is probable that the few small mistakes that actually occurred were due to members of the staff who were not present right through this practice. Moreover, the trial count was useful to the Returning Officer and the Assistant Returning Officer, inasmuch as it revealed possible points of weakness, suggested means of avoiding them, and enabled these officers to make necessary, rearrangements of the staff and furniture. I would suggest that in future elections two trial counts should be held (not necessarily both of long duration or with large numbers" of papers), and that the attendance of every member of the staff should be insisted upon on both occasions. The official counts were held in the Caledonian Hall, Worcester Street, that of the Council, and, afterwards, that of the Hospital Board, being taken in the main, hall, and those for the Mayor and the Harbour Board in a smaller hall adjacent. The large hall has a spacious platform, which was used for .the Returning Officer, Assistant Returning Officer, and two computers, the two former being at a large central table with boxes in front of them for the informal and doubtful papers, mis-sorts, and exhausted papers brought up by the supervisors. The computers were placed at a table near and to the left of the large table, and on the right was a large set of pigeonholes to take the bundles of voting-papers after they had been dealt with by the computers. Behind the Returning Officers' table were four tlackboards, on two of which were written the names of all the candidates elected and excluded at any stage, the other two boards giving the number of the count in progress and the nature of it {e.g., " Count 4-—next available choice after Smith at count 2 "). Down the middle of the hall were four large sortingtables, and on them were placed the sets of pigeonholes for the use of the sorters. There were thirty candidates for the sixteen seats on the City Council; accordingly, each set of pigeonholes had thirty-two compartments, one for each candidate, one for doubtful and informal papers, and one for exhausted papers. The compartments measured 6 in. by 6 in. at the face, and were 14 in. deep. (The voting-papers were, by inadvertence, made somewhat wider than had been intended ; the pigeonholes should be fin. to 1 in. wider than the papers.) If the number of candidates be large (as, for instance, thirty in the case of the City Council), the papers and the boxes for holding them are long, and consequently the work of sorting the papers into thirty-two such boxes causes so much physical effort that the method becomes impracticable ; whereas if pigeonholes are used a sorter can with the aid of a suitable office-stool adopt any one of three positions and yet reach all the pigeonholes without moving from his position, and can go on sorting briskly for nine hours a day for several days. At the sides of the sorting-tables were the counting-tables, one for each, candidate, labelled with his or her name. In elections held on this system in other parts of the world it appears to have been found that the sorters were able to go through papeis more quickly than the counters. This may be so where the number of candidates is small, and the next available choices easy to find ; but it is certainly not the case where the number of candidates is as many as thirty, and the latter choices are not so easily ascertained by inspection. It would have been better, for instance, in the election of Christchurch City Councillors, to have eight sorting-tables instead of four, and also, for the heavy counts at least, to have two sorters at each sorting-table. This was done, after the first count, at Christchurch, by putting four of the most skilful counters to assist the four sorters ; the assistant sorter took up each voting-paper, found the next available choice, passed the paper to the sorter, who checked it and put it into the proper pigeonhole. This was found to be the most accurate and expeditious way of sorting. The staff in the body of the hall' consisted of two supervisors, one on each side of the hall, four sorters, and ten counters (eight of whom were women). The business of the supervisors was to take the sorted papers from the pigeonholes and put them on the several counting-tables ; and, after they had been counted and made up into bundles, properly labelled, to take the bundles of papers for the several candidates up to the computers' table, and also to help the Assistant Returning Officer to see that all the arrangements were working smoothly. When a counter with a small number of papers to count had completed his first bundle he was sent to count the papers on another table. The first few counts (especially the first count) afforded a means of judging, within fairly narrow limits, the amount of work likely to be required at the several counting-tables, so that the work for any particular count might end almost simultaneously for all the counters. When the number of papers in any count was very small (as toward the end of the process) all the sorting was done at one sorting-table ; if very small indeed, both sorting and counting could be done at the one sorting-table, and in such a case two or three counts (as of transfers from the same excluded candidate) could be going on at the same time : this requires slight additional care, of course, on the part of the supervisors, computers, and Assistant Returning Officer. In general the sorting of the papers at the sorting-tables was done by one examination ; but as it was highly important that all informal and doubtful papers should be separated and placed before the Returning Officer at the first count, each paper was examined twice by the sorters at this count. There is very little difficulty in doing this, especially if the method of sorting by two people is adopted, as described above, as for the purpose of sorting—properly so-called—it is necessary only to note the candidate opposite whose name the figure 1 appears. For all counts the sorting of the papers was checked by the counters before counting began. Each bundle of papers was counted twice, and card labels (of which samples are given below) were attached to the completed bundles. The use of these card labels was [found to facilitate, the work of the computers and the Assistant Returning Officer—in fact, they are almost essential.

H.—4l

3

Llixcept where otherwise indicated, the references in what follows are to the election of Councillors.] The card labels in a candidate's pigeonhole at any time would show his total at that stage. For instance, after count 2 in Beanland's pigeonhole there were no voting-papers, but the card label A given below, which shows the votes left to him after the distribution of his surplus (viz., 982, or the quota). At the same stage there were in Climie's pigeonhole two labels, one (similar to A) showing his first choices, 357, and the other (B) showing 680 votes transferred to him from Beanland. After the eighth count, when Climie's surplus (55) was distributed, and the entries at the foot of B had been made, his labels showed him to have 357 and 625, or 982 votes. The voting-papers sliowing the first choices would be attached to the card label, but the 1,103 voting-papers would not be attached to card label B, having been distributed at the eighth count to the next available choices. The card labels for the first count were printed in red ; those for all other counts in black.

At the trial count full sets of directions were issued to computers, supervisors, sorters, and counters : it is much easier to guard against error if the same routine is followed throughout the scrutiny of the votes. Copies of these directions, revised in the light of the experience gained, are attached hereto (Appendix II) ; they may prove of service in future elections, and their reprint here makes it unnecessary to give any more details of the process adopted. Tables 1 and 2 are shown in Appendix I. Table 1 shows the counting of the choices, as indicated on the voting-papers ; Table 2 shows the distribution of the votes in the manner proscribed in the Second Schedule to the Act. Table 2is thus, in effect, the score-sheet for the election, while Table 1 gives the results of the several counts and forms the basis of Table 2. Herein the method adopted in the Tasmanian general election of 1909 was used. Tables 1 and 2 are given in full for the first eleven counts, and a summary of Table 2 alone is given for the remaining counts. There were 174 effective counts—that is, counts in which votes were transferred from Table I to Table 2, but in fjhirty-two of these no transfers of Votes were made to continuing candidates, the small number of votes being either exhausted or " lost by fractions " ; other counts were also made of the papers on which no votes were transferred, to act as checks on previous sortings ; but the process affords so many natural checks against error that these non-effective counts are quite unnecessary. It might be a question for consideration as to whether it would not be expedient to quicken the process of counting by allowing the parcels of votes transferred from excluded candidates to be grouped for that purpose. For instance, the transfer of Butterfield's votes, which took thirty-seven counts, might have been done in three counts ; the continuing candidates would have received three more votes, and three votes less would have been " lost by fractions." The method of grouping transfers to which I refer is to transfer in three several lots, viz. : (a) All. papers with, transfer value 1 ; (b) papers with transfer values less than 1, but not less than |; (c) papers with transfer values less than |. [In the case of (b) and (c) it would be necessary to find a new transfer value by dividing the number of votes to be transferred by the number of papers included in the bundles thus grouped.] Clause 8, paragraph (d), of the Second Schedule prevents this from being done at present; but if it had been allowable the same candidates would have been elected in the same order, and the last count would have appeared thus in respect of the continuing candidates : — Jen-kin .. .. 745 ~j f Jenkin .. .. 720 Peek .. .. 957 | | Peek .. ..944 Wells .. .. 786 y instead of <{ Wells .. ._. 770 Exhausted votes .. 298 | | Exhausted votes « 291 Lost by fractions .. 143 J [_ Lost by fractions _ 204 The total number of counts would have been 51 instead of 174 ; and the total time of counting might have been reduced from thirty-three hours (time actually taken) probably to less than twenty hours. It may be said with truth that the suggestion involves a departure from the strict principles of the Clark system ; but the worst that could happen (provided that the voting was on party lines and that the amount of cross-voting was negligible) would, be the substitution for the last candidate of. another candidate of the same party.

CARD LABEL A. CARD LABEL B. Label of Bundles of all Papers in First Count. Label of Bundle of all Papers in Count named (any except First) on which Candidate named is the. Next Available Choice. Eikst Count. (a) Beanland was tho first choice on 2,563 papers. Count 2. SUBSEQUENT DISPOSAL (lE ANY) OE THE ABOVE VOTES. On the papers of Beanland as at count 1 the next available choice after him is (a) Climie as shown on .. .. .. (b) 1,103 papers. The transfer value is .. (c) .Jgf J The number of votes transferred to (a) is (d) 080 Total number of these votes transferred from (a) to other candidates, exhausted, and lost by omission of fractions, at count 2 ... .. 1,581 Tho number of above votes romaining for (a) .. 082 Subsequent Disposal (ie any) oe the above. Votes. Total number of these votes transferred from (a) to other candidates, exhausted, and lost by omission of fractions, at count 8 .. (e) 55 The number of above votes romaining for (a) .. (/) 625

H.—4l

4

But the following proposal would have no such effect as that last mentioned, nor would it involve any departure from principle, nor can I see any objection to it in practice. It is this : that all papers with the transfer value 1 should be dealt with as if they belonged to one bundle ; similarly, all other papers with the same transfer value (less than 1) should be transferred at one step. This would shorten the counting, although of course not so much as the first suggestion. It would present in some cases an apparent anomaly—namely, that the total number of votes for the several transferees might be more than the number of votes given up by tho candidate who was being excluded ; the excess would be really a recovery of votes lost by fractions, the total for which could be reduced accordingly. Time taken in the Counts. Seats. Candidates. Time taken. Christchurch City Council .. .. .. 16 30 33 hours. Harbour Board .. .. .. .. .. 4 9 8 ~ Hospital Board .. .. .. .. ..7 11 13 „ Number of papers counted in each case, about 17,000. The time taken in the count varies, of course, with the number of papers (or voters), number of seats, and number of candidates. The time required for the first count varies as the total number of voting-papers. The nearest indication of the time required for the remaining counts seems to be the excess of candidates over vacancies—in other words, the number of candidates to be excluded : to give a still better index, this number might be multiplied by the number of candidates elected before the first candidate was excluded. Time taken in the Scrutiny op Votes. It may be of interest to note that the number of separate examinations of papers in the sorting and checking of the 174 effective counts of the City Council election was over 65,000 (besides about 1,000 examinations of papers in the non-effective counts referred to above). The following table affords a comparison of the work involved, and the time taken in doing it :■ —

Table A.

The expense of the election of course depends partly on the length of time taken over the counts, if the staff is the same. In Tasmania, apparently, a much larger staff was employed. In elections conducted according to systems at present in vogue the public has been led to expect an early publication of the result of the poll; accordingly, a new system of voting stands in danger of being condemned if the counting of the votes takes longer than the older system to which we have grown accustomed ; for the moment, the fact that the new system gives a fairer representation of the mind of the constituency is apt to be lost sight of. This prejudice will no doubt disappear upon mature consideration, for there can be very few elections in which delay for a few hours in announcing the results can be of material importance in comparison with the benefits gamed —if these are conceded. This is not the place to give the arguments in favour of proportional representation ; they may be found in any text-book upon the subject. As regards the expense of the election, inasmuch as the counting of the votes is only a part, and not the largest part, of the process, it is probable that the additional expense involved would not be great. The system does indeed appear to become more complicated when the number of seats and the number of candidates is large ; this is not true as far as it concerns the counting, for the longer time taken in the count is due not to any new methods or processes required, but to the continued repetition of the comparatively simple processes involved in transferring surplus votes from elected candidates, and in transferring to the next preferences the votes of candidates excluded on the ground that they are the lowest and have therefore no chance of being elected. To the voter it is probably more difficult to express intelligently the order of his preferences when there are, say, thirty candidates than when there are, say, only ten or fifteen. On this ground, therefore, much may be said for constituencies electing not more than perhaps six or seven members. Even this contention may be modified by reference to tables C and D below, which show that the later preferences exercise very little influence upon the election; so that a voter who puts down the first six preferences and no more is omitting nothing or almost nothing that would really affect the result, unless indeed the last candidates elected were very near to the highest of the rejected candidates. On the ground of expense, it is almost certain that in Christchurch it would have cost more to hold the election in two constituencies electing eight members each than it did to hold one election for the whole city electing sixteen members.

Number of Seats. Number of Candidates. Number of Valid Votes. Number of Examinations of Papers. »-»| Sat Christchurch City Council Harbour Board Hospital Board L6 4 7 so 9 11 16,677 15,488 15,507 Over 65,000 57,000 55,000 174 29 28 33 8 13 Tasmanian Elections, 1909. Darwin Bass Denison 6 6 6 9 L3 L6 9,405 9,070 11,337 % Over 19,000 16 54 109 II 15 11

H.—4l

5

The object of the system of proportional representation is to give each party (or each group of persons with definite aims or opinions, if there are no parties in the usual sense of the term) representation in proportion to its numbers. It is interesting to note how far the purpose of the system was attained in the election of the Christchurch City Councillors. The strength of the parties is assumed to be given by the aggregate of the first-preference votes recorded for the candidates on the respective party " tickets," the independent candidates (though probably of different shades of opinion) being grouped together for the purpose of this estimate. (See Table B).

Table B.—Number of Votes and Number of Seats gained by each Party.

In other words, each party or group of electors obtained the integral number of members nearest to the number to which it was entitled by its votes. Table C.—The Weight of the Various Preferences in determining the Result of the Election. By counting the votes of all the elected candidates it was found that of the total votes on which they were elected the several preferences were in the following proportions (for comparison the corresponding figures for the Tasmanian General Election, 1909, are given) : —■ m. •i. i. x. if, «.-,, i. ii -, i Tasmanian General Christchurch City Chris church Hospital Elf)cti lm Council, 1917 Board, 1917 {Q M ' b (1.6 Members (7 Members \ eot d g oaou elected). elected). Constituency). First preference.. .. .. 0-7649 0-8790 0-739 Second preference .. .. 0-0977 0-0458 0-140 Third preference .. .. 0-0517 0-0292 0-051 Fourth preference .. .. 0-0269 0-0127 0-029 Fifth preference ■ .. .. 0-0195 0-0254 0-014 Sixth preference .. .. 0 0107 0-0055 0-008 Seventh preference .. .. 0-0073 0-0016 0-009 Eighth preference .. .. 0-0053 0-0002 0-008 Ninth preference .. .. 0-0036 0-0008 0-003 Tenth preference . . .. 0-0034 Nil Nil Eleventh preference . . .. 0-0032 ~ ~ Twelfth preference .. .. 0-0036 ~ ~ Thirteenth preference .. .. 0-0011 ~ ~ Fourteenth preference .. .. 0-0008 ~ ~ Fifteenth preference .. .. 0-0002 ~ „ Sixteenth preference, &c.. ..Nil ~ ~ 0-9999 1-0002 1-001 Or we may exhibit the facts thus : — Table D.—Weioiits of Groups of Preferences expressed as Percentages of Successful Candidates' Votes. City Council. Hospital Board. Tasmania. First, second, and third preferences .. 91-44 95-39 93-0-Fourth, fifth, and sixth preferences .. 5-72 4-36 5-1 Seventh, eighth, and ninth preferences .. 1-62 0-25 2-0 Tenth, eleventh, and twelfth preferences 1-02 Nil Nil Thirteenth, fourteenth, and fifteenth preferences .. .. .. 0-21 „ ~ 100-01 100-00 100-1 In other words, in the three elections the first six preferences accounted for 97-16 per cent., 99-75 per cent., and 98-1 per cent., respectively, of the total votes obtained by the successful candidates. Informal Votes. The number of informal votes was somewhat large : in the City Council election out of 17,476 voting-papers 799, or 4-57 per cent., were informal, and the proportion in the other two issues was even greater, the average percentage of informal votes in these three issues being 5-60. The choice of the electors in the mayoral election was marked by a cross opposite the name of the candidate preferred by the elector, and formerly the candidates for councillorship for whom an elector did not

Number of Candidates. Number of Votes. Number of Seats gained. Number of Seats in Proportion to Votes. Jitizeiis' Association labour independents (various) 12 12 6 9,791 4,792 2,094 9 5 2 9-4 4-6 2-0 Totals .. 30 16,677 16 16-0

H.—4l

6

wish to vote were indicated by marking out their names ; accordingly, it is not surprising to find that 2-22 of the voting-papers in the Council election were marked in one or other of these two ways without any order of preference being shown for the candidates selected. 0-37 per cent, of the papers were not marked in any way. The remainder of the informal papers, 1-98 per cent, of the total number of papers, contained errors due to the electors' failure to understand the new method of voting—such as the omission to mark the minimum number of preferences, 1, 2, 3 ; placing the figure 1, 2, or 3 opposite the names of more than one candidate ; putting all the figures 1,2, 3 opposite the same candidate's name, and so on. It is clear that the three methods now in force of marking papers lead to confusion ; some change should, be made. Suggestions for Amendment. The Returning Officer has, I understand, forwarded to the Minister of Internal Affairs the following suggestions for amendment in the law :■ — (a.) Extension of time between the election of Mayor and his assumption of office. The election takes place on the last Wednesday in April, and tho Mayor assumes office on the first Wednesday in May. It may easily happen that the count for the election of Councillors is not completed by the first Wednesday in May- —in which case the Mayor could not enter upon his office, being unable to make the declaration required by section 27 of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908. (6.) Provision should be made for Councillors to retain office until the election of their successors, (c.) It should be made clear that in cases where two or more elections are being held simultaneously a voter may have two or more voting-papers handed to him by the Returning Officer at the same time ; and that in order to simplify the machinery all elections held on the same may be treated as one. (d.) The method of marking voting-papers should be the same in all elections or polls. There are now three methods, which are apt to confuse electors. (c.) The second paragraph in the directions to voters in the First Schedule to the Local Elections (Proportional Representation) Act, 1914, should be amended to make it perfectly clear and unambiguous. At the recent elections it was evident that some electors read it as meaning that they had to put all the numbers 1, 2, 3, against the name of each candidate for whom they desired to vote. (/.) Section 19 (2) of the Municipal Corporations Act, 1908, should be amended to make it perfectly clear when a candidate forfeits his deposit. With regard to these suggestions, while agreeing entirely with («), (b), (c), and (/), I would remark that the expediency of (o) is doubtful, inasmuch as an elector given one voting-paper at a time is less likely to be confused than if he receives two, three, or four papers simultaneously; and that paragraph (d) is not easy to carry into effect: for instance, if the election of Councillors is conducted on the principle of proportional representation, and the election of, say, the members of the Hospital Board on the old system. If all the elections, as in the present case, were conducted on the new method, all papers (even those in the mayoral election) could have the voters' choices indicated by numbers. For the reasons given below I add the following suggestions for the amendment of the Act:-— (g.) The true transfer value should be substituted for that defined in the present Act. (h.) A rule should be made to avoid the useless transfer of votes to a candidate who is sure to be excluded afterwards. I would explain these two points in the following manner: When votes are to be transferred from the surplus of an elected candidate to the other candidates the true transfer value should be used— this would be found, in general, by dividing tho number of surplus votes by the number of unexhausted or transferable papers in the first choices or in the last transfer of the elected candidate, as the case may be. But it may happen that the number of unexhausted or transferable papers is less than the surplus; in that case the transferable votes should be transferred at their full value-—that is, with the transfer value " 1." In any other case the transfer value should be found as stated above. The result would be that the number of exhausted papers would be entered in Table 1, and another line would be added showing the number of unexhausted papers; but in Table 2no account would be taken of " exhausted votes," consequently there would be little or no waste of votes, as now, under this heading. , Another amendment that might be suggested is the insertion of a rule similar to that in subclause (7) of clause 6 of the First Schedule to the English Municipal Representation Bill, 1910, and embodied in the Transvaal Municipal Act of 1909, namely : " A transfer of votes shall not be made (from the surplus of an elected candidate) unless the surplus votes of the elected candidate together with any other surplus votes not transferred exceed the difference between the totals of the two continuing candidates lowest in the poll " ; this avoids the useless transfer of votes which may have to be transferred again from the lowest candidate almost immediately afterwards. The suggestions made above for the amalgamation of the counts in transferring the votes of an excluded candidate require perhaps fuller consideration ; although, as I have already stated, there appears to be no objection in principle to the second suggestion made in that behalf. In conclusion, I have to thank the Town Clerk, Mr. H. R. Smith, and the Returning Officer, Mr. Walter Freeman, for the assistance given me in conducting the counts, and in furnishing much of the material for this report; and I have much pleasure also in testifying to the efficiency and zeal of the staff engaged, which contributed in no small degree to the successful carrying-out of an election presenting, as regards the number of seats and in other respects, a more formidable task than I believe has had to be undertaken in connection with this system of proportional representation in any part of the world. George Hogben, The Under-Secretary, Department of Internal Affairs. Assistant Returning Officer.

H.—4l.

APPENDIX I. Table 1.—Counting of the Choices. Ballot-papers, 17,476. Informal papers, 799. Valid papers, 16,677.

7

Number of Counts. Description of Count. 1 2 O) rH r-H 0. 173 First ; « g Choice. 'S.SLi'fl 4t Ol Sgr, 'At ;i 01 tH ■9*5 'efl -. oi t- *&£ 4- O r-. A.xt rt oiOEH 'At 4 5 O r- ft> rH ■°±I -°£ f> <D ,™ t> 9 9 fijf fill t KO« oj O fen ft ft ri I 9 si an 5 «.2 ft fl <U rH S-J *j o Xr7 X Oi fH 4) rH —J ft) -H J, 'co • 'eS > 0) i J ►> O 0) «a .2 a «..2 ■=; -f-. o j- +a o S y,A & XA'A do PQ cuo ft 9 5 '««' '« 3 > » S « o> p 440 b rl-3_* OlCjK 'A, 10 11 9 U 9 r-l •H 9 r- D & h£ rO 4Eh * £ Ml 5 li *Og H-O" ft ft Beanland, ,T. W. .. Burgoyne, E. Butterfield, J. Climie, P. P. (sT Derrett, 0. C.l§|.. Ell, H. G. gg . . Flesher, J. A. ~ r $.. Gaines, P. Hayward, J. R. Herbert, IT. E. Hoppy, R. Howard, E. J. Hunter, H. Jenkin, W. J. King, S. W. Loasby, A. M. Longton, J. McKellar, A. McKeon, E. L. . . Manning, G. Nicholls, W. Peek, E. Reynolds, T. Robson, E. M. Sullivan, D. G. .. Taylor, A. S. Webber, C. W. Wells, A. Williams, A. Worrall, H. 2. ,563 980 250 357 138 I ,029 1,042 151 897 '210 53 739 714 254 27 492 270 628 169 99 798 455 199 43 1,197 1,805 216 372 486 44 164 145 1,103 37 13 192 8 12 5 13 37 0 135 28 62 7 0 130 30 33 I 9 24 4 15 11 6 10 100 ] 133 51 239 9 1 356 30 150 5 8 28 63 215 10 206 295 6 5 12 5 7 18 41 12 24 7 .18 24 6 9 199 1 306 41 192 2 3 48 95 21 47 51 28 48 73 5 181 48 85 49 8 70 14 io 19 4 11 8 5 1 7 0 3 1 (I !) 26 8 12 22 3 0 818 1 105 14 45 3 0 1 2 0 7 0 2 4 44 0 55 7 24 1 1 I 2 1 .1 5 3 0 19 0 77 14 142 3 2 • ft 77 1 102 . 50 143 4 I 6 12 2 10 4 20 19 139 I 124 51 2 5 2 0 5 12 0 2 24 0 9 65 0 15 175 I 5 9 381 2 3 9 628 2 165 57 4 3 10 33 0 0 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 2 12 2 2 "o "o 1 0 0 — [umber of exhausted papers II 9 1 30 20 io L0 IS lumber of papers counted . . 16,677 2,563 1,805 1,197 1,042 1,029 164 1,103 192 356 628 60 47 ! I ' 55 33 25 'otes transferred to Table II 16,677 I ,581 823 215 99 58 'ransfer value Iff J ffi i%V I ll.il! loilT m rffs | m m M No'Ft. —Tab: lo 1 is not given for counts 12-17-

H.—4l

8

Table 2.—Distribution of the Effective Votes.

Valid-papers, 16,677. Number of "Vacancies to be filled, 16. Quota = ' + 1 = 982. Number ot Counts. 1 5 Hi 11 Description of Count. First. Choices. ft 2^ =H O h a cs 3 CSQ O rss tH s2 .r. ~ CC B goo ft o a ; IK N 3 .is . 3a to "as O os trS -ten "o "3 tH 3 £Ol fi fH a a •H -3 00 -s 'hh a. a a _x EH ta *© -> a © _H *3 os' SB, EH © EH _crs SS3 as o HH Beanland. J. W. .. .. ..2,563 Burgovne, F. .. .. .. 980 Butterfield. J. .. .. 250 Climie. P. R. .. .. .. 357 Derrett. C. C. .. . . .. 138 Ell. H. G. .. .. .. 1,029 Flesher. J. A. .. .. .. 1,042 Gaines P. .. .. -. 151 Hayward. J. R. .. .. .. 897 Herbert, H. F. .. .. .. 210 Hoppv, R. .. .. .. 53 Howard. E. J. .. .. .. 739 Hunter, H. .. .. .. 714 Jenkin. W. J. .. .. .. 254 King. S. W. .. .. .. 27 Loasbv, A. M. .. .. .. 492 Longton. J. .. .. .. 270 McKellar, A. .. .. .. 628 McKeon, E. L. .. .. .. 169 Jlannina. G. .. .. .. 99 Nichol!s,W. .. .. .. 798 Peek. E. .. .. .. 455 Reynold?. J. .. .. .. 199 Robson. F. M. .. .. .. 43 Sullivan, T). G. .. .. ".. 1,197 Tavlor. A. S. .. .. ..1,805 Webber, G W. .. .. .. 216 Wells, A t .. .. .. 372 Williams. A. .. .. .. 486 Worrall, H. .. .. .. 44 Number of exhausted votes Votes lost by omitting fractions Total number of votes at, end of count 16,677 Result of count .. .. .. Beanlani Taylor, Sullivan Flesher, Ell, elected. -1.581 982 101 1,081 89 i 339 680 ! 1,037 22 I 160 1,029 1,042 8 ! 159 118 I 1.015 4 214 7 60 3 742 8 722 22 276 0 27 83 575 17 287 38 666 4 173 0 99 80 878 18 473 20 219 0 43 1,197 1,805 - 3 219 5 j 377 235 j 721 1 I 45 4 10 "l ; 6 i 5 ! 2 ! 4 45 0 60 23 108 4 0 162 13 68 -823 1 4 : 286 0 982 j 1,081 343 1,037 170 1,029 1,042 160 1,015 220 65 744 ! 726 321 27 635 310 774 177 99 1,040 486 287 45 1,197 982 220 381 1,007 45 1 5 11 38 37 52 1 0 2 0 1 3 7 982 1,081 344 1,037 175 1,029 1.042 171 1.015 258 66 781 778 322 27 637 310 775 180 106 1,040 489 287 48 982 982 249 391 1,007 47 ■• 0 •• 1 -60 0 1 1 0 0 11 0 17 2 11 0 0 982 1,081 344 1,037 176 1,029 982 171 1,015 259 67 781 778 333 27 654 312 786 180 106 1,040 I 490 295 i 48 982 982 249 : 391 1,007 47 2 4 -47 0 2 2 1 2 3 0 8 2 3 2 0 982 1,081 346 1,037 180 982 982 171 1,015 261 69 782 780 336 27 662 314 789 182 106 1.040 495 297 48 982 982 249 392 1,007 47 -99 42 8 6 11 2 6 4 3 0 4 0 1 0 0 982 982 388 0 1,037 -55 188 1 982 982 177 0 1,015 272 0 71 1 788 0 784 0 339 40 27 0 666 5 314 0 790 2 182 0 106 0 1,040 498 0 298 0 48 0 982 982 249 0 392 0 1,007 47 0 982 982 388 982 189 982 982 177 1,015 272 72 788 784 379 27 671 314 792 182 106 1,040 498 298 48 982 982 249 392 1,007 47 0 0 0 -33 1 1 0 0 7 0 9 1 4 0 0 982 982 388 982 189 982 982 177 982 273 73 788 784 386 27 680 315 796 182 106 1,040 498 302 48 982 982 249 392 1,007 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 12 23 0 0 -58 10 0 982 982 388 982 189 982 982 177 982 273 73 788 784 389 27 692 317 819 182 106 982 499 312 48 982 982 249 392 1,007 47 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 4 1 5 0 0 985 38i 98! 18! 98. 98: 17' OS: 27: 7: 78i 78s 39! 2' 311 IS: lUI 9S: 49! 31; 41 98! 98! 39: 98! 4' 3 0 3 -215 1 8 0 5 2 0 3 1 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 29 10 "o 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -25 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 4 6 \ 6 | 4 j 10 0 9 9 [ 11 | 20 9 _ ! I , 16,677 .. 16,677 1, Burgoyne, Nieholls, Climie, Williams, Hayward, elected, elected. 16,677 29 3 0 1 j 6 ; 16,677 li 35 16,677 11 43 '16,677 13 49 16,677 55 13 1 5 116,677 14 60 16,677 15 66 16,67'

9

H.— 41

Table 2—Distribution of the Effective Votes. (Summary of Counts 12—174.)

2—H. 41.

Number of Counts. I 11 11 5 9 12 18 12 ■21 37 1 17 Description of Count. a s a JO gi> | A Eh 6-i OB Is r= So ra o r- ill O r. © IB — © g^ 1. rr It ij r. ■3 a,J En H eh as a fH „T * c8 fl © CS O fH O rr gjS 1 © o 11 H 3 O i "sa ao Is * H H_< 3 a a EH OD a * I a,? : 3 jfi I « ." a W o © s j fn a IS a © "3 a a ~it *- ss> +J Sod -g ©n © Ph o E-.H H EH H rr W H En E- H tH fl © <H « fl 01 H oi Beanland, J. W. Burgovne, F. Butterfield, J. .. Climie, P. R. Derrett, C. C. Ell, H. G. Flesher, J. A. Gaines, P. Hayward, J. P.. Herbert, H. F. .. Hoppv, R. Howard, E. J. Hunter, H. Jenkin, W. J. King, S. W. Loasb\% A. M, Longton, J. McKellar, A. McKeon, E. L. .. Manning, G. Xicholls, W. Peek, E. Reynolds. J. Robson, F. M. .. Sullivan, D. G. .. Taylor, A. S. Webber. 0. W. Wells, A. Williams, A. Worrall. H. 982 982 388 982 189 982 982 177 982 273 73 7881 784, 392| 27 696 318 824 182 106 982; 499 318 48 982 982 249 : 392 982 47 I .. 388 I .. 189 ™ I .. .. ■• •• :! 177 •■ ■ "• • 2 275 1 74 I 5 793 2 786 392 -27 0 1 697 1 319 824 182 5 111 •• .. •' .. I 6 " •• ■• •••- .. .. .. 388 189 .. .. .. ■• : •■ : 3 180 3 278 1 75 799: 61 805 12 798 .. 1 393 2 390 2 5 194 1 1 181 2 8 286 6 -75 0; .. 1 S06 ! 32 4, 802 20 7 400 Oi 392 6 398 20 418 195 2 197 3 200 183-183 0 .. 292 39 331 4 335 838 34 872 4 876 822 31 853 16 868 ! 400 0; 406 ] 407 713 9, 722: 9 731 325 0| 325 6 331 831 31 834 4 838 190 4 ! 194 -194. 0 Oj 508 4 512 101 613 318| 0 318 3 321 286 10 ! 296 2 298 446 23 469 5 474 7 -200 22 13 9 16 j 357 889 878 423 425 0 1 426 .. 426 3 429 11 440 0 440 5 445 0 445 29 386 1,387 5 392 0 401 1 402-402 0 .. .. 102 991 —9 982 67 945 5 9,50 7 957 3 960 0 960 112,1,072-90 982 1 424 .. 424 42 466 108 574, 15 589 25; 614 4 618 3 769 .. 769 77 846 110 956 26 982 ..' 0 336 .. 336 42 378-378 0 .. .. | .. | 3 853 .. 853 106 959 731,032 -50 .. j 5 650 .. 650 11 661 21 682 4 686 51 737 15 7.52 1 325 .. 325-325: 0 ,'-. -299 0 . '. 72 552 1 553 2 555 0 555 0 555 120 675 61 j 736 7 59 0 59 12 71 26 97 2 99 73 172 9! 181 i ■ I 8 141 2 143 18 161 17 178 2 ISO 'loj 196 1 197 Webber .. Reynolds Longton Loasby Herbert excluded. excluded. ' excluded. elected. excluded. Howard , McKellar Hunter elected. j elected. elected. 982 982 -14.-, 0 982 982 982 982 982 982 102 72(1 1 .. 698 0 698 1 320 0 824 2 184 113 4 117 13 711 2 2 322 3 4 828 3 3 187 3 0 117-117 35 5 12 766 336 850 982 982 "2 .. .. 982 192 944 1 500 318 48 I 501 3 504 0 318 51 -51 0 2 506 2| 0 31 8 : 0 32 3 645 324 .. .. 3 982 982 .. .. j .. I 1 250 7 399 ■• 25' 258 6 264 1 424 4 428 2 266! 20 3 43l! 15 "l 6 299 480 34 770 .. 1 982 1 48 ;-480 .. 15 1 16 74 4 78 •• " .. .. ! .. .. .. Number of exhausted votes H-H 15 72 0 15 0 72 ! ' 0: 4] 20 2 14; 92 4 .. .. .. .. 22 2 24 9 33 96 10 106 7 113 19 20 : 52 133 j i HOJ 291 7J 204 Votes lost by omitting fractions 2 J16.677 1 ' Total number of votes at end of count ! j .. 16,677 .. .. -■ i ! .. Result of count King excluded. Won all excluded. Robson excluded. Hoppy Mam excluded, oxclu ning Gaines McKeon ided. J excluded. excluded. ' I \ Derr oxclu ! rett ided. Butterfield excluded. Jenkin excluded. Peek and Wells elected. r

H.—4l

10

APPENDIX 11. Notice to Computers, A and B. A will give out the bundles for any count to the supervisors for distribution to the sorting-tables. B will see that the notice-board is properly posted up before each count. A will receive back the exhausted papers brought by the supervisors from the sorting-tables, will check their number, making them into a bundle properly labelled : " Count Exhausted Papers. No " B will receive back from the supervisors all informal and doubtful papers and mis-sorts. The mis-sorts he will give to the supervisors to be taken back to sorting-table I. The informal and doubtful papers he will give to the R. 0., or, in his absence, to the A.8.0. A will receive from the supervisors, at the completion of any count, the new bundles, will send back to the counter concerned any bundle in any way informal, or any bundle the card label on which is not properly filled up and initialled. A and B will then fill in, for the count in question, Table 1, from the card label on the bundles and the label on the bundle of exhausted papers. They will total the column for that count, and will initial it if correct. They will then take Table I (with the bundles) to the A.R.0., who will satisfy himself of the correctness of the entries, and will with them determine the transfer value. A and B will multiply each of the numbers in line (b) of the card labels, and the number of papers in the bundle of exhausted papers, by the transfer value, checking one another. A will take these numbers from Table 1, and B will take them from the labels, and will fill up the card labels down to line (d), initialling them. A and B will each make a card for each count showing (to two decimal places) the fractions lost; they will total the fractions. B will then take the bundles and the fraction-cards to the A.R.O. for entry on Table 2. As the votes are entered on Table 2, A will place the completed bundles in the pigeonholes near the R.O.s table. N.B. -The number of the count should be put on every label and every card used therein, and also at the top of the proper columns. Notice to Supervisors. 1. The supervisors will receive from the computer the bundles to be sorted, and will distribute them, in four approximately equal lots, to the four sorting-tables. 2. They will take the sorted papers out of the pigeonholes at the sorting-tables to the proper counting-tables. But they will take (a) the exhausted papers, and (b) the informal and doubtful papers, from the pigeonholes, in two separate bundles properly labelled to the R.O.s table. -3. They will take out the mis-sorts and doubtfuls out of the boxes on the left of the counters to the R.O.s table. They will receive back the mis-sorts, and take them to sorting-table No. I—to be re-sorted, and then taken to the proper counting-tables. 4. When all papers have thus reached the proper' counting-tables (including the re-sorted missorts), the supervisors will take the bundles from the counters to the R.O.s table, seeing— (i) that each bundle is securely fastened with the strap ; (ii) that the card label on it is filled up as far as line (b) ; (iii) that the card label is initialled. 5. The supervisors will supply the counters with all forms and material required for their work, and will report to the A.R.O. any shortage of forms or material. 6. They will perform any other duties that they may be called upon to do by the Returning Officer oi- his assistants, and in particular will see that no loose paper of any description is left on the floor, chairs, or tables. Notice to Counters. 1. Before beginning any count, read the notice on the notice-board. 2. You are to count the papers showing as the next available choice the candidate at whose table you are stationed. Before you begin to count any papers check them for mis-sorts : look at the next available choice as indicated on. the notice-board ; look also at the lists of elected and excluded candidates. Then 3. Count the papers into parcels of fifty. Count each parcel twice. 4. Round each parcel put one of the paper bands issued for the purpose, with the candidate's name and the number "50 " thereon. Then place the parcel in the right-hand box. Put mis-sorts into the left-hand box. 5. Write on the final parcel the number of papers therein contained. 6. Tie all the parcels for each candidate together into one bundle, putting on the top of the bundle the card label (red for first count, black for all other counts). Do not attach the card label until the mis-sorts have been finally dealt with. Eill in the label as far as the number of papers on which the next available choice is shown, line (b). Write in large clear characters. Initial the card label opposite line (b). Hand the bundle to one of the supervisors for delivery to the Assistant Returning Officer or the computer A. 7. See that no papers are left in. the boxes, on the table, oi on the floor near you.

11

H.—4l

Notice to Sorters. 1. Before the sorting for any count begins, look at the notice on the notice-board and ascertain exactly what you have to do. 2. This will be in every case to sort the papers given to you, by the Assistant Returning Officer or one of his assistants, according to the next available choice after the candidate named in the notice. At the first count the sorting should be done twice by the same sorter, or by two different sorters, as the 3AR.O. may direct. No informal paper should escape this count. 3. In ascertaining the next available choice disregard any candidates who have been declared elected or have been excluded. A. B. C. D. Burns. Burns. 3 Burns. Burns. Byron. 2 Byron. 7 Byron. 5 Byron. Carlyle. Carlyle. 8 Carlyle. Carlyle. 2 Dickens. 5 Dickens. 5 Dickens 3 Dickens. Milton. 6 Milton. 2 Milton. Milton. Ruskin. Ruskin. Ruskin. Ruskin. 4 Scott. Scott. Scott. Scott. 1 Shakspere. I Shakspere. .1 Shakspere. 1 Shakspere. 3 Tennyson. 3 Tennyson. 4 Tennyson. 2 Tennyson. 5 Thackeray. 4 Thackeray. 6' Thackeray. 4 Thackeray. For instance, if Shakspere, Dickens, Thackeray, and Tennyson have been elected and Byron has been excluded, the next available choice after Tennyson is-—on voting-paper• A, Scott; on paper B, Milton ; on paper C, Carlyle. Put each paper into the pigeonhole for the candidate who is next available choice. 4. Put any informal or doubtful papers into the pigeonhole for informal papers. These are to be taken to the Returning Officer or his Assistant. 5. Put any " exhausted " papers into the proper pigeonhole for exhausted papers. These are to be taken to the Assistant Returning Officer. A voting-paper is " exhausted " when there is no candidate opposite whose name a number is placed, other than those already elected or excluded. For instance, paper " D " is exhausted (see paragraph 3) after Tennyson. 6. Give the papers of the several candidates who are the next available choices to one of the supervisors for delivery to the proper counters. 7. See that no papers are left in the pigeonholes, or on your table, or on the floor near your table.

Approximate Cost of Paper. —Preparation, nil; printing (850 copies), £12 10s.

Authority : Marcus F. Marks, Government Printer, Wellington.—l9l7.

Price Hd.]