On Wednesday a message was published from Mr. Balfour to
Mr. Waldorf Astor, one of the successful candidates at Plymouth. The message dealt with the Referendum, and contained the following passage :—" Each voter would have the right to give one vote and no more. There is no plural voting, and the gross inequalities due to differences in the size of constituencies will be avoided." This statement seems to have caused surprise among the opponents of the " Poll of the People," but a very little reflection will surely convince them that it was necessary, nay, inevitable. Dealing with the matter last May, we wrote as follows :-
" It is clear that in the case of the Referendum the principle of `One man one vote' should prevail, and that plural voting cannot be allowed. The main reason for maintaining plural voting at Parliamentary elections is that it to some extent makes up for the monstrous inequality in the value of votes which exists under our present system. As long as Ireland has forty Members more than her fair share and London and its suburbs forty less, the proposal to introduce the principle of 'One man one vote,' but to allow the value of a vote in Ireland to he some five or six times more than it is in London, is preposterously unjust."
We needed no prophetic powers to make this declaration. When every vote is of equal value, as it must be at a Refer- endum, " One man one vote " follows as a matter of course.
Previous page
