ELECTORAL REFORM

New Zealand Tablet, 30 October 1919, Page 39

ELECTORAL REFORM

. | There was a I large attendance -‘ in the r Esperanto 1 Hall/ Wellington, on Tuesday evening, October 14, \ when Mr. E. J. O’Regan delivered an address, under the auspices 'of the {Wellington Diocesan Council of the N.Z. Catholic Federation, the subject being “Proportional Representation.” Major Halpin presided. > Mr. O -Regan - pointed out-that , there " were 76 European constituencies in New Zealand, / for which fully .300 candidates would be competing {at" : the- : coming elections. It was absolutely certain, therefore, that in many electorates the minority would secure the representation, and it was both possible and probable that 1 the next House of. Representatives would .„ contain a majority of minority representatives. The system that made such a state of affairs possible stood condemned/ and he believed, and/ he invited them to believe,' that ■ there was but -one remedynamely, a system of preferential.voting with proportional representation/ The}- would be told, however, that the system was too complicated for acceptance by practical politicians. In point of fact, however, the system was! quite simple. All tho voter had to do was to mark his ballot paper , by writing .the numbers .1, 2, 3, etc., , opposite' the ' names of ' the candidates he supported, wad/ they had the experience of Tasmania, where the system had/ been in force since.lß96, to show that the percentage of spoilt papers was fewer under the preferential-system . than under the old. .Under the single-member system the electoral quota? was ascertained by dividing the number of votes cast by 2; and adding 1 to the result. That-gave half the constituency, plus one—-in other words, a-majority/; Under the proportional system the electoral quota was found in exactly the same way. Thus in a five-member/ constituency the number of votes cast , would bo divided by six; and-one added to the result. Thus .they got the quota required to secure the election of each representative. All votes polled in excess of that quota by a candidate were not required to elect him, and accordingly they were transferred, not arbitrarily, but according to the direction given by each voter on the ballot paper. In a constituency of 30,000 voters returning live members, a minority of 5001 could secure the election of one representative, but by so doing they would not disfranchise the remaining 24,499 voters in the electorate. A successful candidates, might, of course, poll many more votes than the quota, but they would be transferred from him to other candidates who had failed to poll the quota on the first count. - ; The number of wasted votes was thus reduced to a minimum. It was a mistake to speak of the proposed system as if it were intended to secure minority representation. On the contrary, it -would ensure majority representation, but it would ensure/,to/the minority a hearing in the councils of the nation, and it was/absurd to - deny that a minority might wield great influence in Parliament. The speaker used -a blackboard to illustrate both the method of voting - and the formula for ascertaining the quota, and added to the interest of the audience not a little by placing the names of well-known public men on the ballot paper.- Ho turned next to; a consideration of the great advantages that would accrue from plural-member constituencies. First, the voter would be given - a greater range of/ choice, instead of being pinned down . to selecting one of two candidates, with meither of whom ..probably he agreed. ' Secondly; knowing that - the . quota , was _ not a majority of the electorate, many voters who, being in the minority, took no active interest under the existing system, would exert themselves to elect the n mail of their choice. Thirdly, the system of plural-member electorates would operate in the same direction as the abolition, of the ward system in municipalities, and would tend to eliminate the spirit of parochialism from politics. Not ; the least of the disadvantages of the present system was that in small polling booths there could be no real secrecy of the ballot, but under the proportional , system all the votes would be counted at one central polling booth, and thus the completest secrecy - would be .secured,; Dealing .with what politicians sometimes call the , swing of / the pendulum, ■ meaning the change of public opinion from one side to the other, the Speaker contended that 1 the swing was generally, more ; apparent > than real. The, most sweeping political changes were brought about by a small section of inconsistent voters who . readily transferred their support from one section to another. Under the proportional system these meteoric ! changes could not take place, for the, very good ' reason that every ? representative could rely on the constant support of his staunch supporters'. The fickle folk might , change their support as before, but their , votes would not ; affect -the result as long as the candidate could ’poll his, quota. For this reason the reform, though radical, because it went to the, root of the problem , of representation; was also conservative r in the best sense, in that at would assure' a political career to - any man of outstanding

S ability*: who-cared •• to ■; devqte : himself §.ios it. The * lecturer maintained that lin practice proportional' representation would diminish, if : it did not ' destroy, the demand • for the referendum? or plebiscite, and it ■ would certainly ; • restore confidence in Parliamentary government, and c would destroy utterly, the! dangerous vj doctrine that political action should be superseded by direct action. In other words, it would save society from convulsion, "if .-., not from revolution. ; ' The lecturer concluded by reciting what he termed ?'fourteen points in favor of the new system 3 >;?