Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) elections are not democratic?
On average, everyone disagrees with significant nonconsensus between 388 voters.
Please read the comments from other voters below, then scroll down make your decision. Do you agree or disagree with the following statement?
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) elections are not democratic
Reasons To Disagree
I can't believe the bias of this question and of the website in general. Why change a system of government that has been successfully functioning for over 800 years.
22 June 2006
MMP continues to gain the vote of New Zealand, simply because the past 800 years have not successfully worked for all New Zealanders.
24 August 2007
I think MMP elections are democratic because they let everybody have their say, personally.
20 November 2007
The only people who don't want MMP are the ones who want to silence the smaller voices. It's those smaller voices that keep the big ones honest.
12 January 2008
It is more democratic than FPP because under FPP it was possible to govern with only 30% of the popular cote (yes this did happen) while a party with over 20% could get no representation at all (see Bob Jones' party).
2 February 2008
Minority groups need power-you can see the way homosexuals, non-whites etc. are treated. Remove minority power and you silence many, maybe a majority of voices.
20 May 2009
It is more deeply democratic than FPP. Only STV system could be said to be slightly more democratic, but it is much more complicated and liable to be misunderstood by the many dummies in our society
3 July 2009
If there were less electrates geographicly maybe Diversity could grow?
11 October 2010
I disagree because I can't agree with MMP when she's blowing in the wind? I disagree because of the Left, Right, Left, Right tests in Govt reminds of people punching each others lights out, mind you GANGS have always existed and MMP is a undetectable suspect gang and sometimes just as UNDEMOCRATIC as FFP. So become a policeman and try to read politics, more so MMP. At least FFP/STV are a faster politically correct system of mandated politicions, not unmandated protestant nuisances. Which is the better gang? One rounded stable govt of which systems, lol?
11 October 2010
Stupid question, awkwardly worded.
2 December 2012
Reasons To Agree
Every major dictionary describes democracy as "the government of a country by its people, usually through a parliament of representatives elected by them" Check out the Oxford, Wesbsters, Chambers even Heinemann New Zealand Dictionary, they are all the same. There is NO mention of a political party having any right to say in who should be a representative in parliament. In a democracy that is up to the people. That is why I am making this suggestion to the people of New Zealand as we approach the election. Boycott the party vote. I urge all New Zealander's to do at the forthcoming, so called, election, in an attempt to show politicians that citizens of this nation want the return of democratic rule. When some New Zealander's voted for MMP, they knowingly or unknowingly threw democracy out the door. This was a democracy that so many had fort and died for, for so long, protecting our right and privilege as New Zealander's to democratically elect our government. Because of MMP we now live in a party state, where political parties can place their cronies in positions of power. These list MPs, who I believe are political parasites, too yellow or too useless to stand up and be counted, must go if we are to return to democracy. The political polls show us (and they are usually fairly accurate) that either of the so called main parties will require the backing of Winston Peters to gain the Treasury Benches. He sits on the political fence not advising voters which side of that fence he and his party will step down into. I believe that this means that in effect, one man, will have the political clout to control New Zealand. If this so, and it looks very likely, we will for all intent, be governed by what amounts to, a dictator. We were to have been given the right to review MMP in a referendum, however politicians (in their wisdom or self interest), decided that that was not necessary. Many MPs had know doubt found the the MMP gravy train suited them well, as the could sit back, be paid, without having any responsibility to an electorate and voters. I urge all New Zealander's eligible to to vote, to vote for an electorate candidate of their choice. I also urge all voters to boycott the party vote. Be counted, show that New Zealander's will not stand for this undemocratic, party-state method of government, which could so easily slip into a dictatorship. At that point there would be little or no chance of returning to democratic rule, which so many New Zealander's, over the years, have fort and many died for. Are we really prepared to betray their sacrifice?
25 August 2005
it is demorcractic reperesentation...referendum is true democracy
15 February 2006
MMP is a very bad compromise between the old First Past The Post (bad) and STP (good).
5 August 2006
I only agree because in NZ it isn't really. Our Electorate MPs are elected on who gets the most votes, not a majority of them. Our List MPs are selected by their Party's system. Our Head of State still isn't chosen by the majority nor our Head of Government. STV will solve the Electorate problem, perferential voting for the party list of the voter's choice will solve the List problem and a Republic where a [Head of State] is elected will solve the sovereignty problem.
15 April 2007
The system gives undue weight to minorities and dreamers. AND THEN THERE'S SUE BADFORD - NEED I SAY MORE?
1 September 2009
A system which gives Anderton and Dunne the power to decide who gets to govern is in need of serious adjustment. The party list system is a joke. A single seat won without 5% of the party vote countrywide should not allow any extra list candidates in Parliament. STV would be a better choice.
10 October 2010
Voting for a political party makes no sense. We should be voting for individuals or on a referendum. Political parties serve their members first, the public second.
12 April 2011
Reasons for Remain Neutral
The trouble with many of these questions is that they are too vague - unless you know what I mean by 'democracy' you cannot know what my vote means.
Technology today beckons for a new way of voting more hands on more power to the people no more of todays mockery of power for secret agendas would there be a war in Iraq if there was more transperancy in the US government and the people had a voice that could change with relevant information todays system is antiquated and open to corruption, misrepresentation and personal opinions of leaders all 3 major parts of communism!
I'm NEUTRAL; It's seems obvious that MMP offends FFP because of the way MMP is USED. But a RE vised, RE Structure or FIXED MMP can suit NZ politics to a TEE! The question is if MMP is to represent diversity why are MMP votes mixed with FFP votes. Objectively this makes all polls look very wrong and hypocritical, why prejiduce politcal polls. When logically FFP votes aren't diverse votes. FFP doesn't represent MMP, they should be seperated as TWO different votes. 'BLA BLA TOP SECRET', like thats rocket science? Polls should be unhypocritical and show a 50/50 FFP versus MMP vote!? Mind you having TWO rolls is a worse FORM of hypocracy. And causes an inbalance in parliment! Why is parliment so PREJUDICE, is having TWO ROLLS legal we're all RED BLOODED KIWI'S aren't we?
You can make your comments once you have voted.