I think most people would see that it keeps much of the same 'proportionality' of MMP though, except that it is fairer.

I don't see why the Greens for instance, can win only 11.06% of the party vote, yet be awarded more list seats than Labour?

We get two votes in NZ. One for our electorate, one for the whole country. I think they should be worth and equally significant amount. Ideally I would like the same amount of electorate and list MPs, say 60 - 60.

Graeme, you suggest 2.5% as a threshold. I have been suggesting 2.0% for a long time.

Here's why:

Ideally we should have 120 MPs - 70 electorates, and 50 list MPs.

However due to overhangs we have had a variable number of MPs. This is one of my major hang ups with the current system.

I suggest we keep 70 electorate MPs, entrench the 50 list MPs, and for every 2% that a party earns in the party vote, they get a seat. 2% is 1/50th of the party vote. If it turns out that we're a few seats short, the seats are allocated to those closest to the 2% threshold.

The house would currently look like this (brackets for current seats)

Party vote % Seats
National 47.31 66 (59) 42 electorate + 24 list
Labour 27.48 36 (34) 22 electorate + 14 list
Green 11.06 6 (14) 6 list
NZ First 6.59 3 (8) 3 list
Conservative 2.65 1 (0) 1 list
Māori 1.43 4 (3) 3 electorate + 1 list
Mana 1.08 2 (1) 1 electorate + 1 list
ACT 1.07 2 (1) 1 electorate + 1 list
United Future 0.60 1 (1) 1 electorate