Have Your Say

Find Out

What People Are Saying

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
3 days 17 hours 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
5 days 5 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
5 days 11 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
5 days 11 hours 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 4 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 5 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
2 weeks 9 hours 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 6 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
3 weeks 1 day 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 6 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 1 day ago
The one seat threshold should be kept at present level. Winning electorate seats in my opinion has far more weight than getting in on a Party List. The electorate candidate has to put themselves out in the public arena far more than someone sitting as a party faithful. Therefore, there should be a weighting in favour of winning electoral seats.
Barry Muntz
3 weeks 1 day ago
The list order should be automatically generated by ranking unsuccessful candidates by the percentage of votes cast for them in their electorate (the most successful losers if you will). This gives them a genuine mandate of a sort without requiring any extra effort by the voter, with a side benefit that very close competitions between 2 strong candidates generally won't be such cliff-hangers as both will likely make it into Parliament, offering a more certain result more quickly.
Ryan Stewary
3 weeks 4 days ago
I think the threshold should be removed. This way there is no bias to wards any party. To get one seat in Parliament a party would need to get .08% o f the votes in a 120 seat Parliament. This may result in a few more small parties in p[arliament, but it would be truly proportional. It would stop the situation where a party can get many MP's if they get 1 party member.
Digby Green
3 weeks 5 days ago
Dual candidacy should be kept. It's important that good MP's should be able to be highly placed on the list and be able to represent their party at a local level at election time. If not, then only lower ranking MPs would stand in electorate seats as high ranking MPs would not risk standing in marginal seats. If dual candidacy as not allowed, then, for instance, no high ranking Green voters would stand in electorates, therefore, lose their voice at election time.
Jeffrey Vaughan
3 weeks 5 days ago
Parties have better insight into their candidates and should retain the right to decide which candidates bring the required skill sets for them to be effective as part of their team inParliament. Voters vote on party lists on different criteria than they do in an electorate vote. The party list vote is a voter judgment on party policy generally and assumes that party list MPs are bound by their party’s policy. This is a very different rationale to the casting of votes for candidates seeking to represent their electorate in Parliament. The 2 different roles of list vs electorate MPs under MMP should be acknowledged by continuing the current system whereby parties decide who to present on their Party Lists to the voter.
Dr Ron Lopert
3 weeks 5 days ago
I believe coalition deals should be banned under MMP so that the members elected vote according to their electorates wishes, rather than a pre-determened "vote".
Tony Braybrook
3 weeks 6 days ago
I would like to see list MPs become buddy MPs for electorates. This should be done on the basis that the buddy MP and the electorate MP should not come from the same party so that the people of each electorate have broader representation. In the absence of moving to multi-MP electorates, I consider that under MMP this would best enhance democracy and encourage all MPs to have a real understanding of the issues and concerns of the people of New Zealand.
Pene Williams
4 weeks 3 days ago
I believe that if a list MP wants to leave the party in which they entered Parliament, they should have to leave Parliament altogether, and the next person on the list should replace them. It seems unfair that list MPs can stay on when they have no personal mandate to be there
Patricia Laurenson
4 weeks 3 days ago
I believe that the 5% threshhold needs to be raised to 10%. Five people out of a hundred should not have the power to have their policies forced upon the majority so that a government may be formed. The proposed 10% level is still low but I believe that this level would eliminate the small radical minorities at both ends of the political spectrum making it to Parliament.
Norman Stringer
4 weeks 3 days ago
If an MP is already in Parliament via the list they should not be able to contest a by election. I think a person who already has a profile as an MP has an unfair advantage over candidates standing for a by election.
Patricia French
4 weeks 5 days ago
The mistake of eliminating dual candidacy would turn all electorate results into a two-horse race, and MMP into Supplementary Member, any third party candidate would be taking a large risk contesting an electorate. To ensure higher consensus on electorate seat results, I think preferential voting should be used with voters ranking their electoral candidate.
C Walker
5 weeks 20 hours ago
I believe that an MP who leaves their party should be free to continue to operate as an independent MP, or join a new or different party. Many argue that an MP who leaves their party is not being loyal to the voters of that party and has therefore affected the proportionality of Parliament. However, voters vote for a party list, not just for a party. It is equally possible that a party has changed position on an issue, forcing an MP to leave their party as they disagree. An MP in this situation could legitimately argue they more accurately reflect the views of the people who voted for that party. Whether they remain in Parliament should therefore be decided by the voters at the following election.
David Peterson
6 weeks 1 day ago
Any move to prevent people from both standing in an electorate and become a list MP would be undemocratic. Most current List MPs have also stood in an electorate, and frequently obtained significant support. It is valuable experience, ensures that issues are discussed openly by all relevant people, and ensures that the best possible candidates are available for both pathways. Preventing dual candidacy will result in excellent potential MPs (who choose to stand in an electorate) remaining out of parliament, simply because FPP can only elect one person. It is essential that the best possible people be on the party list, but also that they participate fully in the electoral process.
Ian McLean
6 weeks 16 hours ago
Change threshold to 3 electorate seats. The purpose of such a rule is to enable representation of a party in parliament that is strong in one particular part (not just one electorate) of the country but does not reach the threshold. There is little chance for abuse if raised to three since a large party would not let go of three electorates seats.
Martin Leiding
6 weeks 3 days ago
I would like to say that I was not a supporter of MMP at the first referendum, but have come to realise that it is in my opinion the fairest form of representation there is and that I do not have a problem with small parties gaining a seat this is democracy at work and I do accept the comment of the tail wagging the dog this can only happen when the dog is stupid and wants to have the power of government regardless of the cost.
Allen Davies
6 weeks 3 days ago
MPs who are Party Leaders, but are their Party's sole representative in Parliament, should only be entitled to the funding they would get as an electorate MP, and not get any additional "Party Leader" funding. Single MP Parties would still have considerable advantage over those small Parties outside Parliament.
Waikato KeepMMP Campaign
6 weeks 3 days ago
Instead of the Party List being created and ranked by the Party, each Party List should be created and ranked according to how close each candidate came to winning. i.e. each Party list is made up of all the electorate MPs who did not gain an electorate seat with the rankings based on the relative difference between the votes cast by the candidate and the elected MP in the same electorate. Therefore under this proposal all List candidates are also electorate candidates- the List candidates are those candidates who missed out gaining an electorate seat. Currently Electoral candidates who miss out from gaining an electorate seat by a very small margin can presently miss out being in Parliament. Secondly list MPs can get into Parliament without directly getting a vote from any member of the public or can still get into Parliament after getting an extremely poor result in an electorate seat.
Alan Grace
6 weeks 3 days ago
Since parties nominate both types of candidate, electorate and list and stand and fall in the eyes of the local and wider electorate as a consequence of that choice, I can see no effective difference upon which to discriminate against one type of candidate over any other.
John B Sullivan
6 weeks 3 days ago
The overhang seats should continue to be allowed, but with balance seats to maintain the proportionality as decided by the voters.
Terry Kelly
6 weeks 3 days ago

MMP Review E-newsletter

Get updates direct to your inbox.

Home » The Issues

Other

Skip to content top

As well as the issues the Commission must review, other aspects of the MMP voting system can be considered, so if you think there is an important issue that has been overlooked, please include this in your submission. If you want to raise other issues, please bear in mind there are two things the Commission cannot consider—these are the Māori seats and the number of members of Parliament. This means that if you include them, the Commission will not be able to consider this part of your submission.

There are a couple of other things to note. The review is not about whether we should keep MMP as the voting system. This question was decided at the Referendum. This means that if you make a submission recommending we change to a different voting system, the Commission will have to disregard this part of your submission.

The purpose of the review is to improve MMP. It is not about wider electoral issues such as the term of Parliament, election campaigning and political party funding, the broadcasting rules, or electronic voting. As a guide on whether your issue falls into the ‘wider electoral issues’ category, ask yourself – “Is this issue directly related to how the MMP voting system works?” If the answer is no, then it is probably outside the scope of the review.

Top