M to the M to the P

MMP has its benefits and its flaws. here is my opinion.

i prefer MMP over FPP obviously by far. we need minority representation in a country like New Zealand.

I loathe that the people of Epsom can elect Rodney Hide and they effectively also elect five MPS, to me this is a failure of the system. you should not be able to subvert the threshold by winning an electorate seat.

The threshold is important though. if not we'd have a parliament that was too diverse. we'd possibly have one family first MP, one aotearoa legalise cannabis, Bill from B&B party, etc, etc. so i believe in the threshold because governments need to be able to do things. i think it is clear that discussion and consultation are extremely important for any representative democracy but this threshold prevents the prescence of what are effectively independent MPs.

however, the MMP system has a failing that is rectified by the single transferable vote system. my understanding of this is that the person who comes second in an electorate seat has the potential to get into parliament. 

i think with STV, women (who are severely underrepresented in parliament) would get in proportionally. furthermore minorities would still be represented because they may be people's second choices etc. say the bill and ben party is everybody's second choice. they'd get in. they don't under MMP.

i don't really know much about STV. but from what i do know it fixes some of the failings of MMP like underrepresentation of women and closed party lists. 

therefore, i support a referendum on MMP not to remove it but at the very least to alter it to stop ACT from getting into parliament based on rodney's pulling power in Epsom. to ignore the failings of MMP would be to say 'this burnt chocolate cake is nicer than that smelly fish pie (FPP) over there. i do not want to have the possibility to potentially get a chocolate cake that isn't burnt.'

thank you.