Text corrections

PROPORTIONAL VOTING. DEBATE BY EXPERTS.
The Argus (Melbourne, Vic. : 1848 - 1956) Thursday 16 September 1915, page 8
Article
ChangedByOld LinesNew Lines
2009-06-30 21:32:27.0anonymousthese mam points by argument and quota-
these main points by argument and quota-
2009-06-30 21:31:21.0anonymoussystem was equivalent lo plumping and  
system was equivalent to plumping and  
2008-09-25 07:09:29.0user:public:gpowelltint the present system did not ( nsurc l«o
parties Only the other daj the Coiuitrj
party had shown that time parties were
Sossiblc lhere wcio four parties m the
ntish Porbament now but Britain had
the single electorate sjstem
In further debate each spcal cr elaborated
these mam points by argument and nuota
tion The chairman expressed the thank»
of the meeting to the speakers and a vote
of thanks was passed to the chairman
that the present system did not ensure two
parties. Only the other day the Country
party had shown that three parties were
possible. There were four parties in the
British Parliament, now but Britain had
the single electorate system.
In further debate each speaker elaborated
these mam points by argument and quota-
tion. The chairman expressed the thanks
of the meeting to the speakers, and a vote
of thanks was passed to the chairman.
2008-09-25 07:05:40.0user:public:gpowellmeant that i ciñesen tutu es of section
might bo elected, while generally fivourcd
candidates w ere eliminated lint the fatal
defeet was that it 'His inimical to the
Bnlish sjstem of part} government It
party and lesponsibihly It was not in
aceird with the nmclunery of the part)
svs em, since it would tend to eiicoiinge
tue i cprcscntation of small sections Hie
filiation of thi people was not to (.ovcru
but lo elect those who «ere to gmcra
lhiso vvcie to be held responsil li Ik
leprascntatioii of sepaiate Mettons would
temi lo mob rule
Ali Ilumphrejs respondí d bj dalara s
meant that representatives of sections
might be elected, while generally favoured
candidates were eliminated. But the fatal
defect was that it was inimical to the
British system of party government. It
party and responsibility. It was not in
accord with the machinery of the party
system, since it would tend to encourage
the representation of small sections. The
function of the people was not to govern,
but to elect those who were to govern.
These were to be held responsible. The
representation of separate sections would
tend to mob rule.
Mr. Humphreys responded by declaring
2008-09-24 22:50:51.0user:public:gpowellMi John II Humphrejs (sccrctarj of the
Proportion ii Representation Soeiety of
Great Britain) last night mot in debate 'Mr
1 li .Ashworth, in a debate on the merits
or otherwise of the Hare system of propof
tional \ oting for the selection of Australian
P-irhoments Air AV H Henwick was in
the chair Hie debate look place in the
i ooius of the rrcctrade Le t(,ue 1 ondon
House, Ihribeth street Ihe nmlicnce na«
Kinall Mi Humphrejs held that mort ami
mon the present sjsteni of election de-
prived a large number of citizen!, of icprc
seiitation llic single t ransf« rabie Tote
form of proportional representation gj.u
each citiren nn effective \ote in the Govern
mont of his country lins form gave more
pou ei to the clectoi than any other form
¡Mr .Ashworth ndmitlcd min) of the
drawbacks of the single electorate Svstem
But even to day, and with these draw-hacks
it was better than the H ue svstcm Hu«
sjstem was cqun aient lo plumping and
Mr. John H. Humphreys (secretary of the
Proportional Representation Society of
Great Britain) last night met in debate Mr.
T. R. Ashworth, in a debate on the merits
or otherwise of the Hare system of propor-
tional voting for the selection of Australian
Parliaments. Mr. W. H. Renwick was in
the chair. The debate look place in the
rooms of the Freetrade League, London
House, Elizabeth street. The audience was
small. Mr. Humphreys held that more and
more the present system of election de-
prived a large number of citizens of repre-
sentation. The single transferable vote
form of proportional representation gave
each citizen an effective vote in the Govern-
ment of his country. This form gave more
power to the elector than any other form.
Mr. Ashworth admitted many of the
drawbacks of the single electorate system.
But even to-day, and with these drawbacks,
it was better than the Hare system. This
system was equivalent lo plumping and

National Library of Australia