ENPages
page_0001
3, TEMPLE GARDENS, TEMPLE.
Jan: 29: 06
Dear Miss Markham
So far as I have had time, I have looked into the question of Colonial practice in electoral division to-day.
The only precedent I can find on our side is New South Wales, and that is dead in point. There an arbitrary number of members was first fixed, and then a quota was obtained by dividing the total number on the electoral rolls by this figure. After each
page_0002
Census, there is a redistribution by Commissioners appointed for the purposes but the basis remains one of electors and not of population, and the Census returns seem to be used only as a guide to a possible over- or under- representation. (See 44 Vic. c. 13 & 56 Vic. c. 38).
Elsewhere the basis is population. In the Australian Commonwealth e.g. a quota is got (for the House of Representatives) by dividing the whole population by twice the number of Senators. The number of members for each state is determined by dividing the population of each state by this quota.
page_0003
The separate Australian states, so far as I can judge, follow the example of the Commonwealth. Such too seems to be the Canadian practice, though in Canada the electoral districts are generally defined geographically in specific acts, and, if there is no provision for automatic redistribution, it is a little hard to tell what is the basis of division.
New Zealand is an interesting case. There an arbitrary number of members is fixed to begin with. Every 10 years - i.e. after each census - the population is divided by that number, and the quota then obtained is made the basis of
page_0004
redistribution. But laws like No 6 of 1887 provide for the addition of certain percentages in arriving at the population of certain electorates - which is simply an attempt to redress the unfairness of the population basis.
But, as I said before, the strength of our argument lies not in precedent but in principle & expediencey
Yours ever
J.B.
