Let's keep MMP & make it even better.

Why is MMP fairer?

MMP is a proportional system. The seats a political party gets in Parliament matches the votes they win at the election.  A party that gets a quarter of votes, gets a quarter of seats. Under other systems, smaller parties can miss out on getting any seats at all even if lots of people vote for them. Under First Past the Post, a party can get fewer votes than its competitors yet still win an election.

What if I want to change parts of MMP I don't like?

The best way to make MMP better is to vote for it in 2011.  If most people vote to keep MMP this will automatically trigger an independent review of MMP. This review is already planned in the legislation that has set up the referendum. This means voters can have confidence that a vote for MMP is a vote to make MMP better.

What would the review of MMP include?

From the Ministry of Justice website:

• The legislation provides that the Electoral Commission must review:
• The 5 per cent party vote threshold for a party to be eligible for allocation of list seats.
• The one electorate seat threshold for a party to be eligible for allocation of list seats.
• The effects of population change on the ratio of electorate seats to list seats.
• The effect of a party's candidates winning more seats than the party would be entitled to as a result of the party vote on the ratio of electorate seats to list seats.
• The capacity of a person to be both a constituency candidate and list candidate.
• A party's ability to determine the order of candidates on its party list and the inability of voters to rank list candidates in order of preference.

The Electoral Commission must also consider matters referred to it by the Minister of Justice or the House of Representatives, and may consider other matters.

The Commission must not review Maori representation or the number of members of Parliament.

Read more on the Ministry of Justice website

What was so bad about First Past the Post?

Under FPP the two larger parties almost always won all the seats and it was very hard for a smaller party to win any electorate seats. A major party could get less than half all the votes and yet still win the election and hold power.  Voters who were in electorates dominated by one party ('safe seats') who wanted to vote against that party, did not have any opportunity to have their vote count - and most electorates were safe seats. Twice at least National got fewer votes than Labour yet won more seats and formed the government.

Look at the 1993 election results as an example. The number of seats each party got was very different to the percentage of people who voted for the parties:

National - 35.1% of the vote - 50 seats
Labour - 34.7% of the vote - 45 seats
Alliance - 18.2% of the vote - 2 seats
NZ First - 8.4% of the vote - 2 seats
Others - 3.7% of the vote - no seats

Why did we have the First Past the Post system at all if it was so bad?

New Zealand inherited the FPP system from Britain. Features of the Westminster parliamentary system were exported all round the old British Empire, for better or worse.

What's so bad about a major party governing by itself and getting a full majority?

Nothing - if a party gets a majority of votes, it has a mandate to rule by itself - and this is possible under MMP. However, in New Zealand in the past, people have suffered various times when a major party has gained a total majority in Parliament - even when it hasn't deserved it by getting well less than half of the votes - and then enacted unpopular policies that most people didn't want.

Haven't we been here before? None of the alternative systems are new, haven't they been examined and rejected in favour of MMP already?

You're right. All of the alternatives have been examined and rejected, twice. First by a Royal Commission and second by New Zealand voters. Here's the history.

A Royal Commission on Electoral Reform - a panel of experts - was set up in the mid 1980s to look for alternative voting systems. The Royal Commission assessed all the alternatives against 10 criteria and chose MMP as the best system for New Zealand.

In 1992 voters were asked whether they wanted to keep First Past the Post or have a change; and what was their preferred alternative. The four choices people had were the same alternatives we have now: SM, PV, STV and MMP. People chose MMP.

The referendum we are having this year in 2011 poses almost exactly the same question again as the 1992 referendum: Do you want to keep MMP or have a change; and if there is to be a change, do you want SM, PV, STV or FPP. History repeats itself!

I support MMP! What can I do to make sure we keep it?

Make a donation to help spread the word about MMP.

Talk to everyone you know about why you support MMP and encourage them to vote for MMP. And if you want to do more campaigning with us, we'd love to have you on board.

Check out all the things you can do to support MMP.