Have your say
The Issues Being Reviewed
|Date received||Tags||Submitted by||Submission|
|1 Mar 2012||
1. No more than 120 seats proportioned 50/50 including Maori seats as part of electorate seats
|5 Apr 2012||
I would like to see the threshold for pulling a below-5% polling party into parliament increased to 2 electorate seats. That is, If only 1 party member wins an electorate seat, then only that person would enter parliament, even if their share of the party vote would equate to more seats.
|21 May 2012||
The easiest and best way to select candidates for the list is to have the 'list' made up of the MPs that were closest to winning (but were edged out) in their electorate. These are people that the public obviously want. The main advantage of this system is that it cannot be manipulated by back room deals. The unions cannot specify who is high on the list for labour, and corporates cannot specify nationals (nor can dodgy cults). Also, unpopular MPs cannot be brought back by parties. The reason that this system is not likely to be taken up by political parties is because party leaderships love the ability to manipulate the list to please backers. This is precisely why it should be used. Easy to understand, unbiased, representative.
|24 Feb 2012||
1. In the Electorate of Epsom 15,835 voted for John Banks to win that seat. All across New Zealand 59,237 voted for the Conservative Party. In total ACT got 23,889 votes on election night and got one seat due to Banks winning the Epsom seat while the Conservative got no seats even though they had over two times the amount of the party vote. This tells me that the threshold is too high and should be reduced down to 2% of the party vote.
2. The list system has to be completely changed. What gives the politicians a right to get to choose which members get in and which don't. The public should be given the ability to choose the order of the list as it is a right to choose the people who represent us, otherwise the MMP system is hypercritical.
|16 Feb 2012||
The idea of List MP's seems to be totally ineffectual. Which specific members of the population do they represent. If we have MP's for particular wards at least this makes them accountable to that specific area. It also gives the Parties more power, and makes individual MP less accountable to the people.
|17 Feb 2012||
Happy with the 5% threshold per party. Don't think it needs adjusting.
Get rid of "coat-tailing" for parties under 5% Elected MPs only for parties attracting less than 5% of total vote.
A candidate should be able to stand for a seat and appear on their party list.
Happy that parties can decide the order of their list candidates.
Proportion of list seats to electorate seats should be the minimum required to reflect the proportionality of the total vote. Not sure what it is at the moment but an electorate/list ratio of around 2:1 seems fair and reasonable.
|29 Mar 2012||
List threshold is roughly right. Shouldn't be too low- suggest 4 or 5 %.
Dual candidacy - a candidate should be able to be on the list and contest an electorate seat. Likely to mean higher ranked/better candidates context electorates.
Order of candidates on list - voters should be able to rank them as they want
Overhang - no problem with current arrangements
Proportion electorate vs list seats - Don't change it, especially don't reduce % of list seats.
|5 Apr 2012||
My preference for changes to MMP are as follows:
|20 Feb 2012||
the list issue means anyone who can convince 5% of the voters can head for parliment and there have been some less than serious persons or groups, that can influence the ability of the chosen govt.
|29 Mar 2012||
||Angela Calkin Goeres||
I think the eligibility of bringing in extra MPs when a party has one electorate MP but doesn't have 5% of party votes should be reviewed. The same threshold as the eligibility for list seats should apply. E.g. if a party has one elected MP but doesn't reach the 5% threshold of party votes, they shouldn't be allowed to have any further MPs.