ELECTIONS ON ONE DAY.
1-F we were not the most Conservative people on the face of the earth, we should long ago have done what every other civilised nation does,—hold all elections at a General Election on one day. Instead, we let the elections dribble on for some three weeks or a month, and thus very greatly aggravate the disturbance to business of all kinds caused by a Dissolution. The reason why the English system took its present form, is, we suppose, to be found in the fact that our electoral customs grew up and were fixed before the days of telegraphs and railways. In those days, there was a great difference in time 'between the receipt of the writs in Northumberland and in Kent. But it was the Sheriff's business, on receipt of the writ, to hold the poll- ing without delay ; and thus people got accustomed to the elections dropping in one after another. Hence, when electoral reform has been before Parliament, people have never seriously considered whether, after all, it would not be better to adopt the Continental plan. Indeed, there has been a sort of tacit agreement that it would be against Nature to hold the elections on one day, and this feeling has been fostered by the election agents and the Returning Officers' deputies, who, when elections are not simultaneous, can manage to earn fees in three or four separate constituen- cies. If the polling was everywhere on the mind day, a good many men who now earn £100 at a Dissolution would only earn £20. It is true that five men would then earn £20 each, but that is not an argument which appeals to the man who expects to earn £100. Naturally enough, then, the officials are dead against all elections on the same day, and declare positively that it would be impossible to find enough men to preside in the booths and at the counting. The answer, however, is complete ; what can be done in France, America, and Germany, can be done here. As a matter of fact, there would be no sort of difficulty in finding plenty of people perfectly capable of performing the work re_ quired, which is neither difficult nor technical, and needs only intelligence and trustworthiness.
Believing, as we do, that it would be a very great im- provement to change our present system, we rejoice at the remarks made by Sir Charles Russell in his speech de- livered on Monday in East Marylebone. From these, it appears that the Government have virtually decided to adopt the plan of simultaneous elections. They consider that by this means they will be able to secure indirectly the principle of " One man, one vote." " It was neces- sary," said Sir Charles Russell, " that elections should take place on the same day, and this would in a great measure prevent plural voting, and the gentleman of whom they had been told who had travelled several hundreds of miles during Ile late election and had recorded 39 votes, would only be able to record a limited number." The Attorney- General went on to tell his audience " that a Bill had been drawn up embodying nearly all the suggestions referred to that evening, and that at a seasonable moment it would be introduced into the House of Commons." Most people would, we believe, consider this a very reasonable com- promise in regard to the " One man, one vote " cry, provided. always that the Government should also pledge themselves to deal promptly with the question of " One vote, one value." By its means, the mon who can qualify in more than one place would not be disenfranchised. as regards all but one qualification, while the scandal of men with 39 votes would be effectually got rid of. The most hardened Tory could scarcely manage to be in thirty-nine places on one day. Apart, however, from any indirect consequences, we regard the proposal as of very great importance. To begin with, the moral effect of the result of a General Election would be enormously enhanced. If in 1886 the country had on one day, and with one united and audible voice, condemned Home-rule, as they con- demned it on some twenty consecutive days, wo should have heard no more talk of an Irish Parliament. The roar of indignation would have been so loud, that it would have damped even Mr. Gladstone's ardour. We do not, however, wish to use this argument on one side only. At the next Election, the country will again be asked whether it will have Home-rule, and it is of the greatest importance that its answer, whatever it is, should be final and complete, and should withdraw the problem finally from politics. If it is given simultaneously in 670 constituencies, it is much more likely to impress men's minds with its finality, than if it is given piecemeal. Equally important is the fact that by means of simul- taneous elections we shall get the real opinion of the voters. At present, there are thousands of voters in the con- stituencies which poll late who vote with the winning side.. The sporting instincts of the Briton make him as anxious at an election as on a race-course to back the winner. Hence, as soon as it looks as if the Greens are certain to win, the balancing electors desert in battalions to the lucky colour. "We are winning hand-over-hand" is known by all election agents to be the most telling placard they can possibly display. In country districts, where there is a naive disregard of political appearances, you may often be asked, " Who's going to win ? " and when you have declared Jones a " moral certainty," you will receive the comfortable assurance, "then I'll vote for he." No doubt this desire to shout with the biggest crowd has inci- dentally one good effect. It often tends to make Parlia- mentary majorities decisive. Still, this advantage is by no means great enough to be set against that which would be obtained. through an uninfluenced expression of opinion by the voters. We want to get at their views, un- affected by the mesmerism of success. Yet another reason for adopting simultaneous elections may be given. If at any time the voice of the United Kingdom had to be taken on a matter of urgent Foreign policy, or of internal disorder, it might be of the utmost moment to take the decision quickly. Now it takes six weeks to get a new Parliament. Under the new system, a day would be named in the writs- for the elections, say a week after their issue, and thus the new Parliament could, if necessary, meet ton days after the dissolution of the old.
We should be by no means averse to seeing two clauses added to the Bill for elections on one day. The first should make election-day, as far as possible, a general holiday. By this means, the complaints sometimes made that employers refuse their men leave to vote, and thus coerce and intimidate them—complaints which we do not think have often much real ground to support them, but which are none the less believed in, and so tend to create a grievance—would be got rid of once and for all. The second should order the closing of all public-houses during the day of polling. That would not only put a stop to a great deal of corrupt treating, but would enable polling-day to be made a holiday with safety. If the public-houses remained open, and the voters had a holiday, there might be a risk that they would spend it too hilariously. A holiday and no public-houses open would be a sort of political Sunday during service hours, given over to the serious discharge of political duties and non-intoxicating drinks. Perhaps it will be said, however,' Where will the people who come in to vote get refreshments ?' Our answer would b', In the coffee-rooms and refreshment-places, which are to be found now not only in every town, but in almost every street.' We have no desire to compel the people on ordinary days to drink tea or coffee rather than beer, but on election-days we cannot help thinking that the less the liquor consumed the better. When next day the result of the polling is known, let the elector who wishes to do so pledge his Member in whatever liquor he fancies best. While it is uncertain who is to be his Member, it is better that he should keep his wits clear on tea and coffee.
Previous page
