United Future

This is a loaded question. If you want to know is MMP the right system for NZ - ASK. I answered NO simply because STV is fairer, not because I disagree with MMP. I do not feel that MMP has been particularly successful in NZ for 2 reasons:
1. No-one appreciated that we would end up with the number of MPs we now have and
2. There is some general disquiet with the number of unelected MPs (who are largely invisible).
The lack of information about what all these 120 people actually do does not help nor does the realisation that a number of them (remember Kopu?) don't do anything!

Based on census statistics the 'asian' population in NZ will be almost as large as the maori poulation by 2026 - yet under MMP there is no allocation of special seats for these groups. Is that fair? It is great to see UF advocating a review of MMP - this is an important issue of equality and justice in NZ

STV is certainly fairer that FPP in that the winner of a seat must have more than 50% of the vote. But fairer than MMP? Not so sure.
I think there are certainly better systems than MMP (PV).
Having the wasted vote is not fair. Those votes for below 5% parties should be redistributable ala STV and not just lost.
Some form of public ranking of the list of the party of their choice may also be in order.

Stating the obvious: it takes guts for a party that owes its existence to MMP to call for a referendum on it. Further proof that UF exists beyond the petty politics of "he said, she said" and is bold enough to call for some no.8 wire ingenuity to be applied to our future. We are going to need some confident thinkers in and outside the political realm who engage the public about where we are heading as a country. We talk often about needing to do right by our coming generations regarding the environment, but what about discussing the very nature of how we run this country?

The electorate system is currently geographically based - so each area of NZ has its own electorate to represent it. But is this a good way to represent modern NZ? We're increasingly united, in terms of geographic areas, and electorates based on geographical areas are increasingly outdated. Having seats especially reserved for Maori is no different, except that these seats are based on race/tribe as well as geography. As long as these seats remain proportional to the amount of Maori on the Maori role, they're a way for Maori to be represented by MPs with their interests at heart. The seats make parliament more democratic, not less.
Why not open up representation in this way to other groups? Lots of groups in NZ are better represented by their segment in society than by the part of the country they live in. Perhaps any group with a sufficient amount of voters wanting to participate could designate themselves as on a special role - that way seats could be especially allocated for, say, students, pensioners, or Asians, in whatever way people feel they want to align themselves. Maori could retain special Maori seats but all groups in society could have equal rights to form their own special seats.
The 5% limit also seems a little unfair in the current system. STV redistribution would be fair but too complicated.

New Zealand abolished the second chamber way back about 50 years ago, and left the country wide open for a dictatorship. As I am a firm believer in democracy, I see MMP with two votes for each person the simplist way of applying to every voter and ensuring the small voices of the smaller parties are heard. This makes a dictatorship almost impossible.

I believe the Australian system to be a greater headache for voters to determine the way they might wish to vote, and hense as we see
in local body elections in New Zealand, there is a low turn out.

Allocating various numbers of seats to the various ethnic groups in the population, may provide a voice in the government, but it smacks at an unbiased leaning away from democracy. The answer is for each party in putting up their list of canidates to select people with the ability to represent population groupings within their selected lists.

Basing representation on ethnic groups smacks of racism. A proportional voting system allows any ethnic group to gain representation either through an existing party or through an ethnic based party eg; the Maori Party. I do question whether the 5% minimum should be relaxed - perhaps to 2%.

There is no doubt that MMP is fairer than FPP. You only have to look at the crazy results coming out of the 1978 and 1981 elections to see that. STV does give more power to the voter - rather than the political party leaders. A supplementary system - touted by the supporters of FPP who realise FPP won't get out of the starting gate - is just a return to FPP with a few extra crumbs dispersed to the smaller parties. It is unlikely to bear any resemblance to the wishes of voters. STV would be ideal but failing that we're better off sticking with MMP.