Forms of Proportional Representation

There are several different variations in use each having been developed by the particular country to suit its own individual circumstances. But the two main systems that were considered for adoption in Britain by the Hansard Society Commission on Electoral Reform are the single transferable vote and one which can be called the additional member system. Both systems have their advantages and disadvantages and neither are necessarily the best form for New Zealand. This would be the subject of submissions by all interested parties and groups once the principle is accepted. The petition is solely concerned with establishment of the principle (for a discussion of the various electoral systems in use see "Voting in Democracies" by E. Lakeman and J. Lambert).

Personally neither system appeals very much. Two proposals that I think would be best are either (a) retain the present set-up, except, only those candidates who receive a majority of the votes in their electorate be declared elected. The remaining seats to be allocated to each party so that its total number of seats is equivalent to its percentage of the total vote. For example, for the 1975 election the allocation of seats should have been National 41, Labour 34, Social Credit 7, Values 5. As it was 46 candidates received a majority of the vote in their electorates. 35 National and 11 Labour. The allocation of the remaining seats would have been—National 6, Labour 23, Social Credit 7, and Values 5. (b) use an extension of the Local Body electoral system (which is itself the single transferable vote system) and treat the whole country as one constituency (as in Israel). Each voter would be given a list of all candidates standing of which he or she crosses out the names of all candidates except the number for the seats to be filled. The only disadvantage of this would be a rather large ballot paper.