What People Are Saying

The existing MMP system makes it impossible for voters to get rid of MPs who shelter on party lists. Party lists should be decided by the voter and not by the party.This could be achieved by making all MPs stand in an electorate.The lists for each party would be compiled from polling results of individual unsuccessful candidates.

D W Prentice

2 days 6 hours ago

I would like to see dual candidacy removed. I believe in MPs having responsibility for and accountability to a local electorate. List MPs do not have either of these and it seems patently wrong for a candidate who fails to win an electorate seat being able to enter Parliament via a Party List. If a way can be found for List MPs to be assigned to an electorate I would be in favour of this.

Eric Green

2 days 6 hours ago

I agree the current system whereby a defeated electorate MP can be returned via the party list is unsatisfactory. However, there are many reasons why a MP may not be re-elected as an electorate MP It is too simplistic to say that a MP has been "rejected" by the electorate. In many cases it may simply be a rejection of the party with which that MP is affiliated, rather than an indictment on the qualities or work ethic of that MP. To impose a total prohibition is not fair, I favour a more nuanced approach.Candidates who lose an electorate should be skipped on the party list if their own electorate vote is lower than their party’s vote in their electorate.

Alexander Ho

2 days 16 hours ago

I propose the abolition of the threshold which means that the ‘one seat’ rule would no longer be an issue -parties under the 5% threshold would always receive the members of Parliament their party vote entitles them to. If the threshold is only lowered rather than abolished the abolition of the one seat rule at the same time would increase the already formidable hurdles a new political party must pass to obtain representation in Parliament and as a result would tend to retard political changes.

David Simpkin

3 days 12 hours ago

Dual candidacy should be removed. At present dual candidacy is like an insurance policy.

David B. KNUTSON

1 day 10 hours ago

5% threshold should be kept. It forms the basis of sensible overall representation for MMP. Less than 5% in our view trivializes the concept of MMP.

Murray and Thelma BRITT

4 days 1 hour ago

The threshold should be lowered to 3% as this is more representative. I think the issues raised against such a move, ie tail-wagging-the-dog arguments have not proven to be the case and parties have, on the whole, shown they can work well together.

Michael Alspach

4 days 4 hours ago

Candidates standing for an electoral seat should not be able to be a list candidate as well because if they do not win the electoral seat they are rejected by the electorate. Being on the list as well gives an unfair advantage.

Chris Pile

4 days 5 hours ago

I don't see how voters could order party lists but it would be nice. The problem is that most people further down on the list are not well known so voters would not really know their talents. It seems that political parties selecting them is the only way.

James Andrews

4 days 10 hours ago

Candidates standing in electorate seats and on the party lists? NO! If a candidate has already been rejected as an electorate representative, Why should he be given a second chance as a list member?

Kay Follas

4 days 10 hours ago

Parties can make their decisions about dual candidates. Chris Finlayson was never going to beat Annette King in Rongotai but he flew the flag for National well. It is stupid to suggest that just because he lost in Rongotai he should not enter Parliament. Likewise with Keith Locke. The people decide who they want as an MP by the electorate vote or party vote. It is our choice.

Brendon Bonner

4 days 10 hours ago

The main weakness in the current operation of the MMP system is that people who are not actually elected get into Parliament solely by virtue of their position on a party list. This is not satisfactory. Members of Parliament are supposed to represent first and foremost the people of NZ, not the party who selected them.There is often virtually nil public scrutiny of the person who finishes up as an MP.

Tom Bougher

4 days 22 hours ago

There seems to be no pressing case for changing the level from the current 5%. A reduction to 4 % looks like tinkering, and would right no significant wrong. Reducing the level risks increasing fragmentation, raising the level will narrow the breadth of representation. For the size of our population the balance is about right.

J R H Andrews

6 days 4 hours ago

The one-electorate seat threshold should remain as it is considered that the current system is well documented and relatively understood by New Zealanders. The one-electorate seat threshold allows for further diversity and representation in Parliament should a party not achieve a 5% threshold. It is considered that together, the one electorate seat and 5% threshold strikes a good balance to achieve diversity without causing instability.

Sarah Dowie

1 week 3 days ago

Our politicians and political parties have shown they have a very one sided and self serving view of how MMP should work. Their published submissions to the Review confirm this. The Commission needs to take this into account when considering their submissions. It is important that the MMP system reflects what is best for New Zealand rather than what might be best for the politicians and the political parties.

Michael Smith

1 week 3 days ago

Having seen how MMP creates Parliaments I would like to see more views represented. Too often viewpoints are left out by the five percent threshold. Obviously it is a balance between to much and too little, so I would like to see it lowered to four percent.

Paul Waite

1 week 4 days ago

I am strongly against a situation where a candidate can be elected to a seat, and then even though their party gets less than 5% of the proportional vote, they drag in other "MP's" with them. I hope you will bring in a rule where if the successful candidate is the only one elected for a party - and the party fails to attain 5% - then that candidate is on their own.

Kara Lipski

1 week 4 days ago

The threshold needs to be raised to 10 per cent to get into Parliament and have fewer list MPs. Currently small interest groups have too much influence on decision making and stop the party with the mandate to make change is unable to operate effectively. The will of the majority is being undermined by minority interests.

Deborah G Walton-Derry

1 week 4 days ago

The voter must choose the list member, non performance wil see them off next term. Its not right for the party to select party hacks to only be elected to warm seats and make up the voting numbers.

raymond john king

1 week 4 days ago

I think the 5% threshold is a fair level. So far in the history of MMP in NZ it has proven to be a successful factor in allowing parties with significant support to be represented. Lowering the threshold may allow for single issue parties to be represented but are unlikely to have any influence.

Chris Eames

1 week 5 days ago

Political parties must be free to decide their own destinies. Voters can judge the parties on their ordering of candidates. Legislative intrusion into party organisations is a slippery slope. If voters had to order the candidates on election day, the process would become dangerously complicated and bad for that reason.

Richard Featherstone

1 week 5 days ago

The more votes a List MP gets from the electorate, then the higher up the list they should go. So in this situation, every candidate must stand for the electorate. Even if they don't get in, we know what the level of their support is. At the end of the day, we can count this level of support and then rank the candidates to the List accordingly.

Leonard Bielski

1 week 6 days ago

An overhang should occur, that is fair. The issue with this is that I can foresee in time that either Labour or National will have an overhang, this is a serious issue. I think firstly increase the size of electorate population variation to 10% is a good idea, secondly, Parliment may have to expand, if the overhang ever becomes more the 5MPs.

Rion Gulley

1 week 6 days ago

The list is put up as a 'Party Package' and helps define what the party stands for and what is important to the Party. The Party can also seek to choose the race/gender balance it wants and this could be distorted if voters could ialter rankings.

Keith Cullum

1 week 6 days ago

Every potential MP must stand for an electoral seat and those who miss out then become the "list MPs". This ensures that good people who stand before an electorate get into Parliament via the list. This means that some electorates then have two MPs looking after their interests which is fair enough in my thinking. Those who go on to the list have to work to get there. The party doesn't then have to select a list - the electorate does at the polls on polling day. Those who go on the list therefore are those who miss out on an electorate seat but who gain the most votes in the polls compared to their party colleagues who also missed out.

Alan Jermaine

2 weeks 5 days ago

There needs to be a mechanism to outlaw the strategic/tactical voting shenanigans we have seen in the last couple of elections. This would be at least partially solved by eliminating the one seat threshold for example. The whole performance we have seen in the past couple of elections reeks of game fixing and corruption.

John Brunette

2 weeks 6 days ago

Sitting list MPs should not be able to contest by elections because they are already in Parliament. By letting a list MP run for an electorate when they are already in Parliament, it lets parties choose who they want to replace them off the list, while a big name can run for the electorate at no risk to their spot in Parliament.

Malcolm Jacobson

2 weeks 6 days ago

List MPs should not be able to stand as by-election candidates. They have too much of an advantage, already having name-recognition as MPs. And if a list MP wins a by-election, then we are in danger of getting some party hack (from lower down on the list) as their replacement.

Richard W Grossman

2 weeks 5 days ago

The threshold should be lifted to 10% as the current level allows very small interest groups to have a disproportionate influence on Parliament. A higher threshold would ensure that the views of the vast majority carry the day.    

Stuart T Smith

3 weeks 4 hours ago

In order to solve the problem of unaccountable electorate MPs, New Zealand should adopt the ‘incumbent-defeat assurance’ (IDA) provision proposed by Professor Matthew Shugart. Under this provision, incumbent electorate MPs who fail to hold their electorate seats at the next election cannot return on the list unless their personal popularity exceeds their party’s popularity in that electorate . This distinguishes electorate MPs who lose their seats due to a swing against their party, or due to another party fielding an especially strong candidate, from those who are genuinely unpopular in their electorates.

Tamsin Bertaud-Gandar

3 weeks 6 hours ago

Previous Pause Next