TWO ISSUE BALLOT PAPER.

White Ribbon, Volume 30, Issue 360, 18 June 1925, Page 4

TWO ISSUE BALLOT PAPER.

PKEEEREXTI \L VOTING BETTER. Mr J. McCombs, M.P., has sent the following letter to Mrs T. E. Taylor. The letter sets forth the advantages of preferential voting, as applied to the Licensing issues: Clifton, 6th June. 1 325. Dear Mrs Taylor, There seems to have been some confusion of ideas at the Alliance Convention regarding the effect of J’referential Voting, as applied to the Licensing issue. SINGLE TR ANSEERAItI i: VOTE. If people would hold the idea of a “Single Transferable Vote” clearly in their minds, there would be less confusion of thought. The (‘lector is not given two or three votes, he is merely asked to indicate his first, second and third preferences. The elector has only one vote, and it counts for his first preference, and can only b< transferred from his first preference if the issue for which he votes comes lowest on the poll when the first preferences are counted. NEVER COUNTER. It is ineonceiveable to me that Prohibition would receive a fewer number of votes than “Continuance” and than “State Control.” As Prohibition is not likely to come third, the second preference on the Prohibition Ballot papers will never b“ counted. WHEN SECOND PREFERENCE POINTED. The object of indicating the Second Preference is to show where the vote is to be transferred in a certain contingency, namely, if the issue for which the elector indicates his fust preference come bottom of the poll and is therefore struck out. The elector in that case and in that case only has his vote transferred to the issue marked second preference on his ballot paper. NOT TWO VOTES. Puder no circumstances can an elector's second preference count against his first preference, because each elector has a “Single transferable Vote.” It is absolutely impossible for the Second Preference votes on the Continuance Pallot Papers and on the Prohibition ballot papers to both go to “State Control” because Prohibition and Continuance could

not both be at the foot of the poll. If Continuance is at the foot of the poll, then Continuance will be eliminated, and the ballot papers on which Continuance is marked as first preference will re re-examined to ascertain the Second Preference, and the vote on each such ballot paper will be transferred to the issue marked Second Preference. Second Preference indicated by t ie hgure ”2” is State Control or State Purchase, then the vote will be traubfe;~ed in accordance witli the wish of the elector. THE THIItD PREFERENCE. The Third Preference is really no preference, or, speaking more strictly, it is never a vote, because under no conceivable circumstances can the last preference be counted. If one issue is eliminated the vote must go to the highest remaining preference, that is, the second preference. STATE CONTROL. My own view is that State Control will receive the fewest number of first preferences, and, being at the foot of the poll, this issue will be eliminated after the first count, and the votes afterwards transferred to the issue marked “Second Preference." If we have the same experience as in Queensland, about onethird of these Second Preferences will go to Prohibition, and that will be a tremendous gain to the Prohibition vote, as compared with the present law. The present law. in effect, transfers the whole of the State Control vote to Continuance. If 12,000 votes are thus transferred to Prohibition it will mean 12,000 off tlie other side, and 1 2.000 on to the Prohibition vote —a gain of 2 4,000. CORPORATE CONTROL. There is just one other contingency. Suppose the Liquor people concentrate on “Corporate Control” and get a majority of their people to vote “Corporate Control” in preference to “Continuance,” then Continuance w f ould be at the foot of the poll, and the Second Preference votes on the Continuance ballot paper would go to “Corporate Control.” PREFERENTIAL VOTING REST. If, under preferential voting, the total liquor vote did finally go to “Corporate Control,” the result would be precisely the same as if we had a two-issue ballot paper w ith Corporate Control as one of the issues.

As prohibitionists we have already said through the “Vanguard” that with a two-fssue ballot paper the Liquor people should be allowed to choose whether Continuance or Corporate Control should be the Liquor issue on the ballot paper. After all, the effect of a preferential .vote on three issues is to reduce the three issues to tw r o by eliminating the issue receiving the fewest number of votes. If Prohibition or any other issue receives an absolute majority of first preference votes, there is no further count, but. if no issue receives an absolute majority of first preferences, then the issue wit 1 ' the fewest number of preferences is eliminated and you have what the Alliance is demanding —a two-issue ballot paper. In the first count you have three issues; in the second count you have two issues, and, in each count, each elector one vote and one vote only. Suppose the voting was as at last election, and suppose only one-third of those who cast their first preference vote for State Control gave their second preference for Prohibition, the result would he: First State Second Count Control Count Three Votes Two i .sues. Transferred. Issues, t\>nt in nance.— 282659 plus 23818 = 306487 State < 'ontrol.— 35727 Prohibition.— 300791 plue 11909 = 312700 The final result under preferential voting is precisely the same as though you had a two-issue ballot paper. There is no unfairness inflicted on any section of the community; every elector votes his preference, his first preference being his vote, and his vote is not transferred to his second < preference unless and until his first choice is eliminated by reason of I being foot of the poll. The third j’ preference, as already explained, can never count as a vote. If a Prohibitionist indicates his preferences thus: Emit in nance . . 3 State Control . . 2 Prohibition . . 1 That is a vote for Prohibition, and, for reasons already stated, that vote can not be transferred to Continuance. Such a vote could only be

transferred to “State Control” in the ven unlikely contingency of Prohibition being at the foot of the poll when the first preferences were counted, and that could only happen jf Prohibition polled less than onethird of the total number of votes cast. \ PROHIBITION VOTE. A vote such as above would be a w)t< for Prohibition, and Prohibition only, because the vote would never I) transferred. When people indicate three preferences, that does not mean three votes, it only means one vote, end, let me repeat, that vote ran only be transferred if the issue for which the elector votes comes at the foot of the poll when the first preferences are counted. This was fully explained to the Prohibition elector of Queensland, and they clearly understood that, in the cir-

cumstances, a vote cast as above courted as a vote for Prohibition and for Prohibition only. ONE von: ONLY. The only elector whose vote Is transferred to his second preference is the (‘lector whose first choice has been eliminated from the final count. The elector whose second preference is thu. counted does not exercise two \otes his one vote is transferred. Those who gyve their first preference vote for the two-issues which are not eliminated do not require to have their second preferences conidcred: their first preference votes are carried forward into the s«*oni count, because the issue for which they voted is still in the running when the second and final vote takes place. Each elector exercises one vote at the first count, when there are three i -lies, and every elector exercises one vote and one vote only In the final count when there are only two issues. LIQUOK VOTK. If the Liquor Party w’ere 'wise, they would, in their own interests, accept two-issue ballot paper, with “Corporate Control” rather than a preferential vote on three issues. This in my opinion would most effectively concentrate the Anti-Pro-hibition vote. Under preferential voting the party that has more than one issue on the ballot paper suffers from two disadvantages—firstly, the lack of unity in objective, and, there fore, weakness in campaigning; and.

secondly, and more important still, from their point of view there is the possibility that the issue first eliminated may be the issue on which they could most effectively concentrate the Anti-Prohibition vote. The Liquor Party would run no such risk with a two issue ballot paper; they would nominate “Corporate Control” as their issue on the ballot paper, and they would concentrate the Liquor vote accordingly. As against preferential voting, the Liquor Party, not the Prohibition Party, stands to gain with a two issue ballot pap*r. I think you will agree that practically the whole of the Continuance voters would prefer “Corporate Control” to Prohibition, and would vote accordingly. On the other hard, it does not at all follow that if the final issue under preferential voting were Continuance versus Prohibition, that the Corporate Controllers, who think there ought to be some change, would all vote for Continuance. PKOHimTIOV ADVANTAGE. We should look at the matter from the point of view' of the new conditions which would be created under preferential voting. Under the present law the party with two issues on the ballot paper has the advantage. Under -preferential voting the party with one issue on the ballot paper gains the advantage. Preferential voting, at the worst, will give the Prohibitionists all that a two issue ballot paper would give, and, at the best, preferential voting may mean a d-rided advantage to the party which has only one issue on the ballot paper. The Prohibitionists have everything to gain and nothing to lose by a preferential voting paper. The more issues the better, so long as the Prohibitionists have only one issue on the ballot paper. Yours faithfully, J. McCOMBS.