Proportional voting is best for New Zealand?

On average, everyone agrees with significant nonconsensus between 462 voters.

Reasons To Disagree

When everyone gets to put their two cents in, you get a heavy bucket that takes forever to move. MMP serves no purpose except to give minority groups a greater voice than their numbers warrant. This leads to bad policy making and leads to parliament focusing on too many social issues rather than dealing with the needs of the country as a whole. We end up with the mess we are in now, badly decayed infrastructure and nobody with any ideas on how to fix it

many of us voted thinking we would get the opportunity to vote again when we saw if it works it doesn't but no referendum. Why Not!!!

MMP at least has been a disaster in all countries where it has been tried. It results in a disproportionate voice by tiny minorities, and failure to progress needed legislation. STV is a much faiere method.

This means nothing can ever be done quickly and limits the govts ability to be flexible in times of crisis such as now.

Why the hell does anyone want minority groups changing everything to suit them? What is a minority group? Do you choose to be in a minority group? If you dont like NZ the way it is then F off.EG: If I want to use a public swimming pool and get told I cant because there are muslim women using it and they cant be seen by me, they can f off and build there own private swimming pool. Theyve just removed the word PUBLIC. They arent members of the public anymore are they. I strongly disagree in proportional voting. Majority rules

MMP's a total disaster - it's allowed pollies in who would never ever have been elected as individuals as well as simplistic single issue populist prats. PLUS - A VERY GOOD REASON TO DISAGREE - SUE BADFORD - SAY NO MORE!!!

Democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what to have for dinner

Reasons To Agree

MMP as ensures minority groups throughout NZ can have their views represented proportionally in parliament, eg the greens. These views would not even be heard under FPP. FPP provides representation by geography, something that was necessary and made sense in the past, but now people are much more mobile, and so it is better to have representation by ideological groups. Minority parties can not dictate policy, any majority can pass legislation, and so minority parties only can swing the votes within the middle ground between the 2 major ideologies.

Is probably the best of the "Elected Dictatorship" system we put up with.

Agree with the statement but MMP is not the best alternative. Any democracy that returns to parliament individuals who have not been elected is not a good system.

Hey, if you've GOT to have dictatorship by an uninformed majority, at least make it properly representitive... which is exactly what PR does.

Proportionality is fine but MMP is not very good, STP would have been a lot better. A type of STP is used in truely democratic countries like Switzerland.

The Parliamentary processes as they stand,and have always stood in this country create nothing but false democracies run by only a powerful few, otherwise known as oligarchies.

But not MMP

MMP is both a system of political representation and geographic representation. As for the nay sayers - meddlers of minority were a problem for the days when an election was won by a simply plurality as well. One would remember the economic right takeover of Labour during 80's? One must realise that whether it's right or whether it's wrong - politics has seperated itself from democracy; sometimes the leaders we elect aren't as effective as their foes.

MMP has set a standard the standard is that spanners when put in the spoke can slow or stop a nation from sinking deeper.

For the people who say it gives minorities a disproportionate voice, you need to take the silver spoon that's so far up your arse that it comes out your mouth so you use it to feed yourself, out. It gives minorities a voice - one they didn't even have before. It is not disproportionate - it is simply a voice.

The problem with FPP is that the plurality, not majority, get to lead. The wonderous thing with proportional representation is that it recognizes that as in nature, nothing is black and white but instead is made up of many variations of many different things. Our proportional representation is based on both geographic (electorates) and political representation (List MPs) as it is which is unique to only very few countries elightened enough to utilise it.

It provides a much-needed restraint on the two old parties - who tend to promise one thing and deliver something else once they are given the power. NZ is said to be 'the fastest lawmaker in the West'. A proportional system (whether MMP or something else) at least tempers that.

FPP and non-representational voting favours right-winger usually. I guess that's why we have a referendum coming up in 2011 on it. If Party A wins over half the electorates by a hair's breadth, but Party B wins the others extremely convincingly, most of the nation supports Party B(-right?), but Party A governs-wtf?

agree we have never before had our parliament representing all aspects of NZ population as well as it does now. Before MMP we had no ethnic minorities, fewer women and a predominance of middle class males

MMP is certainly preferable to FPP, but it's still a mess. STV would be an improvement, but in reality, the party system has broken. Party politics has produced major parties whose policy is based on what's best for their chances at the next election rather than what's best for the country in the longer term.

RMP - what about this submission in HEINSITE!? I reckon this political FUTURISTIC SYSTEM may even turn the page or SURPRISE the EDUCATED? Mind you, ONE and ONE has always made TWO but you might have to do the MATHS! And I haven't got a broomstick stuck my ARSE anymore so the witchhunts over. 'Sarcasm' is a witches worst humour so I'M glad that Mrs and Mr SNIFF went "POO" when they pulled out the broomstick out of my ARSE. Don't worry that you haven't pulled the broomstick out of your ARSE yet, 'keep the "DEVIL IN THE DETAIL", ROME wasn't built in a day!? For RMP to work there has to be ONE ROLL, ONE NATION with DUAL VOTING which should create political PEACE!? Dual voting would mean NO votes are wasted. An electrate votes or FFPs winners wouldn't be partly or get any extra MMP votes for those Parties that win their electrates. Dual voting would mean NO votes are wasted and the END of having to contribute to FFP. Hopefully you don't wish to contribute to FPPS SECRET AGENDA of mmp or EXTRA FFP VOTES EITHER. RMP stops the tail wagging the dog and IS very basic to understand. Gets rid of some unmandated parlimentarians and REdelivers them as beaurocrats so that freedom of speech IS maintained and NO votes are wasted!. At the same time limits parlimentarian mps between 90 or 72 maybe? RMP is alike to an EVOLING DEMOCRACY and will adopt or include NZ Treaty partnership as constitutional! Then the Moari culture cannot DIE and will last forever. All cultures have to EVOLVE or die, noone lives forever although RMP should remain IMMORTAL!? RMP puts regected regional FFPs back on the transferible list as STV/parlimentarian lists so that being a regional mp has it's advantages. If mps are National lists that HAVE NO ELECTRATE AND are regected by there chosen FFP then they can only become beaurocrats. All regional mps should be ranked by their MMP vote percentage in their electrate otherwise WHY have a list? National lists/bearocrats will have to get ranked by some other 'HAS BEEN' method. There has to be an option for regected FFPs or noone would want to be risk their future in becoming a mp. RMP creates much more democracy and is a perfect platform for more freedoms of expression! (RMP has all the necessary CHANGES democracy needs. Understanding this paradoxal truth will transform politics, everything has its own season. Hopefully everybody will accept the evitable. The dogmas of a quiet past are inadequate to a stormy present quoted by Abraham Lincoln) In other words all NZs old politicals systems were the necessary changes needed at those times. RMP can't substantuate much evidence from the past IF any because its a futuristic political system that should last forever, "touch wood" Now that MMP is NZs latest dinosaur and is an extension to FFP really which makes RMP real suitable for todays representive party systems. Hopefully RMP GETS a REASONABLE debate and gets a trial between 2014 and 2018!? RE vised MMP. REnamed RMP to REpresent FFP, SM, STVs, MMPs, Preferentail listed mps and lobby groups? RMP represents the past and future. You'd still have 120 odd mps but half the listed mps would be preferentail mps. Preferentail mps are mps out of parliment in their electrates if they have ONE. RMP consists of 60 electrates with 30 regional lists and 30 national lists or beaurocrats. A 60/30/30 RMP govt would REduce electrates from 69 to 60 which would or should be very accomplishable considering Auckland could easily merge Four of its smaller ELECTRATES by shifting bounderies etc. Christchurch earthquake has spread it electrate bounderies on it's own omission and could easily lose Three electrates. And Wellington could easily merge Two by shifting bounderies etc. Bearocrats can adjudacate for the larger electrates anyhow. RMP would include FOUR permanent DEMOCRATIC Maori dominated electrates, SPREAD OUT like a spiderweb covering a huge geographic area combining Maori communities together. POSSIBLE linking Maori constituents to their most obligated or chosen Marae within their electrate, which would be far BETTER than TWO ROLLS voter WISE!? With an equal amount of constituents as democratically possible, like in all electrates. So they're SEEN AS democratic seats like in all electrates. A REPUBLIC is an insult to NZs inspirational TREATY of Waitangi and SETTLES NOTHING!!!!!!!!!!!!! The Queens not immortal but RMP IS IMMORTAL. Dropping the Queens Chain will be a necessary part of an IMMORTAL CONSTITUTION! So the RIGHT WORDS will have TO ammend NZs PUBLIC SPACE or (Takutai Moana) Bill to help conform an immortal constitutional for NZ? RMP can become very CONSTITUTIONAL and will REsolve all NZs needed CONSTITUTIONAL REforms!!!??? 'WHAT IF' their are about 60 legitimate claims to, Worth collectly POSSIBLE many MILLIONS. The PAST IS also the FUTURE when WE move forward as ONE NATION anyway. The gravy train provided colonialism and bridged all grievences and now we all have to stop that TRAIN and get off, wether we're RIGHT or WRONG. MMPs now the criminal not democracy. MMP legalises LAWLESSNESS like an excuse on legs!!! RMP will FIX all these problems. To qualify as a lobby group your political vehicle would need 1% of RMP or 20'000 VOTES. Lobby groups couldn't write BILLS because the're not RMP equivalent (60'000 VOTES) And could only voice their concerns through their preferred Preferentail RMP party. Lobby groups are also preferentail beaurocrats or partail RMP parties. The Beehive IS an Idea container anyhow, the more lobby groups the better the democracy. To qualify for a STV/parlimentarian or the preferred list thats qualified and chosen to do the job. You'd need at least ONE FFP with 3% of MMP to keep the likes of Act with ONE STV list in parliment. FFPs would automatically qualify as PARMENTARIANS. If you qualified as a STV/parlimentarian the percentage of the possible 30 STVs you get would depend on how much of the MMP VOTE your party wins. Maybe FFP parties could exchange 1 STV for 3 RMP/buearocrats, not all MPs would want to live in Wellington. This could only decrease the limit of members in the house to as low as 72? ie (much like SM) if the're were 4 FFP Parties in parliment. To limit parlimentarians to 72. Plus between Five or and Eight odd extra STV/parlimentarians for parties with high MMP counts (explained below) means parlimentarians would registar at 80 odd. If 80 PARLIMENTARIANS are needed for 75 odd portfolios I don't know maybe the select committee will keep them busy? There'd still be 120 odd mps consisting of 60/12+8 with 45 odd bearocrats but you'd still have to drop NINE FFPs or electrates and you'd still need to have DUAL VOTING? This way everyone is treated equally!? The Two large FFP parties and the Maori party wouldn't get several EXTRA STVs because they've won most the FFPs because hopefully DUAL VOTING will become REality, dual voting favours RMP not FFP. RMP REpresents FFP and MPP so its a win/win for both electrol systems much like going BACK to the FUTURE. But RMP favours FFP more because STVs are more SET apart for FFP than MMP, even though STVs are partly MMP TOO, confusing but TRUE! - If Act gets Epsom with 5% of MMP, Act will get One STV and 2 RMP bearocrats. - If Act gets Epsom with 6% of MMP (thats 2 STVs and NO RMPs) - If Act gets Epsom with 11% of MMP, Act would get 3 STVs and 2 RMP beaurocrats. And with the RMP's corresponding RULES USED to justify this futuristic political system without offending democracies VOTING RIGHTS, everybody should be 'HONKY DOORRY' if thats a WORD. Lowering the MMP threshold would INCOURAGE and INCREASE more democracy. High MMP parties without a FFP party or an electrate like NZ First and the Greens should still qualify for preferentail parties or RMP bearocrats which should suit democracy because BOTH parties have NO mandate or FFP to be in parliment! Maybe high MMP parties LIKE the GREENS could also qualify for a STV by getting 10% of the MMP THRESHOLD, 1 EXTRA STV SEAT per each 10% of MMP a party gets. 20% of MMP would get the Greens 2 STVs with 6 beaurocrats (20% of 30 STVs is 6 bearocrats), better than SM electrol system anyway! BUT 20% of MMP would be very hard to achieve since Lab/Nat and the Maori party probably should get 50/60% of MMP between them, leaving Act, NZ First, Greens, UF, Alliance, Libs, Workers, The Citizens Party and many other Parties lobbying for your RMP VOTE. The Greens will struggle to get 2 STVs but could get a few odd beaurocrats for their idealogical efforts. So you'd think they'd be happy? An extra STV/mp per or for every 10% of the RMP/mmp vote should get between and/or 5/8 ODD EXTRA MPs in parliment and will INCREASE DEMOCRACY even more! Logically RMP parties and lobby groups will get there fair share of the DIVERSITY VOTE. With Dual VOTING and ONE ROLL minority parties could thrive and 10% of 3/4 million should be easier to accomplish. Bearing in 'MIND' that VOTING turnouts should INCREASE because of DUAL VOTING. VOTERS are sick of the left/right shenanigans of the main two FFP parties and don't wont to pick SIDES. RMP can more be seen as a house of INDEPENDENTS trying to hang on to their seats, like living in a BEEHIVE,'fancy that'. The STVs, RMPS and lobby groups will keep the majority honest anyway? Then democracies 99 Party would be GLORIFIED with between 80 and 90 odd mps POSSIBLE. Which would mean NZs diversity would be between 50% and 60% of MPs with possible 80-90 odd mps in parliment with 45 bearocrats. Maybe the MAJORITY to PASS bills into LAW could INCREASE to, to maybe 60% since thier should be only between 80/90 mps in parliment ANYWAY! Then NO party could cry wolf. With a CONSCIOUS VOTE on all MORAL issues would stop parliment thinking they're better than Democracy, which would be helpful! To qualify for a preferentail party or RMP beaurocratic party which IS 3% of MMP your party would need 60,000 votes. This should encourage the Alliance and maybe a new party or three like the Citizens or maybe a farmers party etc. Whats the difference between being a RMP beaurocratic party or a parlimentary party when you can still influance LAW change with a 3% threshold? Mind you its a job, that many wouldn't want and its a disrespected position but someone has to do it even though many fought for the RIGHT to VOTE for our HOUSE of REPresentives. Especially now with the MEDIA ACTING like a BIG policemen. Maybe we're all CRIMINALS, its our democracy anyway!??? NOT those EDUCATED PEOPLE in CLOWN SUITS from the MEDIA? The MEDIA can always start a Humpty Dumpty party and pull themselves DOWN if they want to control politics?

MMP has done what it was suppose to do. It has given some voice to the smaller parties and released us from the monopoly imposed by the two dominant parties.