Have your say
The Issues Being Reviewed
|Date received||Tags||Submitted by||Submission|
|20 Mar 2012||
Parties who only win electorate seats should not also get seats based on their party vote if they do not pass the threshold. They have won a seat, but do not really have a mandate to bring their colleagues in on their share of party vote.
|13 Feb 2012||
The threshold has to be raised if we are to have stable governments - and without the situation we have seen on at least 2 occasions when 1 individual has disproportional power in deciding which of the major parties will prevail and which policies will be put into action.
It's time to stop the tail wagging the dog.
The ability of a party to decide the list order (to stack it to suit their own political ends) has to change. I have no idea how this could be achieved but democracy is not well served when a candidate can loose the electorate vote and still end up in parliament as a list MP
|15 Feb 2012||
I am 100% opposed to a dual candidacy.
We have had in my electorate a situation where the voters voted out a sitting MP, only to have that same person enter parliament on a party list.
This candidate was not seen as a worthy MP by the electorate for very good reason. They did not deserve to be in parliament and were duly voted out of parliament. So it was shameful they were allowed to become an MP by "default".
|9 Apr 2012||
I think the 5% threshold is sensible but the other option of getting multiple members based on only 1.2% of the vote and an electorate seat is unfair. All parties should have to get 5% before the list seats are allocated to them. If they have a popular electorate MP and they win that is fine but getting others in often for just a single term is unfair to other parties who have higher national percentage but did not win an electorate seat.
|5 Mar 2012||
It is illegal for major parties to nominate one candidate for a constituency and then publicly ask its supporters to vote for another candidate, and if elected this MP is not included in MPs that make up the party’s quota of MPs as determined by the party vote. This "other candidate" (eg John Banks and Peter Dunne) having got such support, is likely to be just as loyal to the party as any party member candidate so the party gets a loyal MP over and above its entitlement as determined by the party vote.
Section 192(2)(a) provides that candidates "for" the party are included in the party’s quota, meaning the party wants you, while 127(7)(b) and 150(6)(d) provide for candidates "of" the party.
|31 May 2012||
The threshhold should be increased because as it is there is too much of the tail wagging the dog
|23 Apr 2012||
Eligibility: I dont think winning an electorat seat should entitle a party to list seats. The party should reach the threshold in the party vote, which should remain at 5%, befor any of its list candidates ar entitled to a seat n Parliament.
Dual candidacy.: I think the leaders and deputy leaders of the major parties should be on the list only, at #1 and #2.. They would therefor be able to concentrate solely on national and international affairs, rather than be distracted by local electorat issues..
|13 Feb 2012||
I believe that a lower threshold is desirable to avoid the 2008 situation where NZ First was not represented in parliament in spite of nearly making the 5% target. On the other hand a threshold is probably necessary at some level (3%) to ensure a workable parliament is elected.
I also believe that the present situation where winning an electorate seat automatically triggers a percentage allocation of list MPs is not wise. Again the 2008 comparison between ACT and NZ First shows the unfairness of this. The party vote threshold, at whatever level it is set, should apply regardless of success in electorates.
|21 May 2012||
I have no problems with dual candidacy as it encourages a list MP to run in an electoral seat, which they have no chance of winning, to raise the party profile and to give a local face to the supporters of the party in the electorate.
I do think the threshold should be lowered to 2% to make it easier for new parties to form, increasing representation, but not so easy that extremist parties could form (white supremacist, fascist or totalitarian socialist etc).
|25 May 2012||
||Alistair T J McKee||
I have read the submission to this review from the Campaign For MMP and strongly support its rationale (legitimacy and fairness) and recommendations with discussion made to this Review. I was active in supporting campaigns for MMP in the 1990's and last year.
In particular I recommend lowering the threshold for party status and representation to 4% OR LOWER.
I support the dual candidacy for the reasons given by the campaign for MMP, including the recommendation to the Review to consider a remedy for the case of the failed electorate candidate after one term returning to the List.
I also emphatically support the concern to maintain strict proportionality through demographic changes over time, such as limiting electorates to 72 seats.