Have your say
The Issues Being Reviewed
|Date received||Tags||Submitted by||Submission|
|28 May 2012||
||Zenia & Antony Dunkley||
We think that the threshold should be lowered to 4% as recommened by the Commission.
The electoral seat threshold should be removed and if a candidate is elected they should only have that one seat. No other member of this party can be brought in if the party vote is below the new 4% threshold.
Dual candidancy is acceptable.
Overhang must be allowed in the interests of proportionality.
The proportion of electorate to list seats must be kept in the same ratio. The population growth can be managed by making the electoral areas bigger; and if in the future these become unmanageable through very large growth, then the number of total seats would have to be increased.
|19 Feb 2012||
The current 5% is appropriate as this stops small geographical or interest groups carrying the balance of power but does not lift the threshold beyond reach of serious political parties. A winner of an electorate seat however should not be able to bring others in their party into Parliament.
A candidate should first have to stand for an electorate, if its a blue ribbon seat to the other party, then they can be considered for the party list. That way they would at least be out on the streets, door to door knocking, and listening to the publics input. Then they can work for their electrorate, even though they are not the representative.
The proportion of electorate seats must always be less than list seats.
|3 Mar 2012||
||Yvonne Margaret Curtis||
Lower the threshold to 4%.
|29 Apr 2012||
The antics that got John Banks into parliament in Epsom when really he was totally supporting National should not be allowed. The last election was not the first time National pulled that stunt along with Act (Rodney Hide) - both parties playing games with MMP to get the National party into parliament.
|19 Feb 2012||
Threshold should be 5%, regardless whether party wins an electorate seat
|25 May 2012||
I support to break the link between the Electorate Threshold and Party Vote Threshold, to remove exaggarated influence by voters in a few particular electorates.
I also support lowering the Party Vote Threshold to 2% or 3%. This will bring it closer in line with the 1% of voters that an electorate MP represents, while still discouraging frivolous parties.
I do not think this threshold should be removed completely. Even though historically proliferation of parties did not seem a major problem in NZ, the picture might have been different if there was no threshold at all.
The proportion of electorate seats to list seats should be maintained as it is, as it is an important factor in guaranteeing proportionality.
|16 Feb 2012||
The 5% threshold should remain
A list MP should not be able to stand as a candidate in a by-election
Dual candidacy should be permitted
Parties should rank list MP's
Overhangs should continue to be allowed
Proportionality should be maintained as presently - review in 2050
|5 Apr 2012||
I wish that the threshold for electorate candidates be removed; i.e. that no electorate candidate may carry further members of her/his party into parliament.
|20 Apr 2012||
||Winstone J Norfolk||
All candidates should earn their position in the electorate by public exposure and acclimation. When they have earn't their electorate seat, they then should earn the right against all comers to their seat in Parliament. MMP is a weak kneed system, wide open to cronyism and back door deals.
List seats do nothing for me. I originally thought it would let more people into Parliament with exceptional credentials. The opposite seems to be the case.
FPP built this great little country. The only way anyone should get for themselves the privilege of a seat in Parliament is to earn it, by being first at the Winning Post, just like a race horse or an athlete.
I strongly recommend a return to FPP. WJN.
|31 May 2012||
||Winifred W Rockell||
1 Thresholds: -
2 Dual candidacy allows good candidates to be retained eveen if they lose their seats due to slight swings or boundary changes
3 Local body elections which allow for prererential voting show that voters would have considerable difficulties listing candidates themselves
4 The present 50/50 system does not distort the make up of the House. The strict proportionality is highly desirable