The campaign for MMP is telling voters they should vote for MMP to get a review of that system of voting.
But if a majority vote for change we will also get a review of MMP.
A second referendum will then be held allowing us to choose between MMP, with any changes to the system adopted from the review, and whichever alternative system most voters chose in the first referendum.
However, voting for MMP doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the changes you want or any changes at all.
The chances of getting consensus on improvements to the system aren’t high.
CORRECTION:
Comments from Gavin and David below points out I’m wrong on this and there will only be a review if people vote to keep MMP.
I based my post on memory of a plan to have a review of MMP regardless of the outcome of the first referendum. That obviously didn’t make it through to legislation.
Homepaddock 
At the moment, there is no review of MMP if ‘not MMP’ wins the first referendum.
http://www.justice.govt.nz/electoral/mmp-referendum/frequently-asked-questions-14-december-2010#what-happens-after-the-1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand_voting_method_referendum,_2011#Majority_vote_to_keep_the_MMP_system
LikeLike
This post is not true. Section 74 of the Electoral Referendum Act 2010 says that it is only if 50% vote to Keep MMP that there will be an independent review triggered. See: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/act/public/2010/0139/latest/DLM2833634.html?search=ts_act_Electoral+Referendum_resel&p=1
LikeLike
Thanks for the correction Gavind & david. I’ve updated the post.
LikeLike
MMP is FAIL.
If you National Supporters want to see a National Govt beyond 2014/7 then you had better pull your collective heads out of the sand. You will have no Political allies to form a coalition Govt with. The Keyster is too popular, and has or will kill off all your coalition partners.
The next Labour Green Govt will usher in a Socialist racially discriminatory Constitution, and you will not see a reversal away from Big Govt policies unless you vote for Change. MMP needs to be relegated to the effluent pit where it reared its’ ugly head from
LikeLike
Mort – I didn’t vote for MMP in the first place and I won’t be voting for it this time either.
You are right about the danger of National being a victim of its own popularity.
LikeLike
@mort – Whaleoil has been running that line as well, but the way I see it there are at least five seats-worth of votes to the right of where National are now – they have to go somewhere, MMP or no MMP. (I do hope it’s “no MMP” though…)
LikeLike
Mort – You seem to be suggesting that MMP is a system where the number of coalition partners you have = the chances you have of being the govt.
In reality, MMP is a system where if you, and your coalition partners, get 50% of the votes nationwide you will get to be the government (unlike FPP and others where you can form a govt with 35% support). If National “kills off” all its coalition partners then the only choice the right-wing people will have is National. But that doesn’t diminish the power of the right-wing vote. It just means that National will increase its share of the vote at the expense of ACT/United Future etc. What that means is that National are still just as likely at forming a govt as the left-wing bloc of Labour/Greens etc. But that when they do form the government it will just be National and not anyone else.
Your comment is slightly un-democratic in that you are saying we should return to a system where National don’t need to get 50% support of NZers in order to govern by themselves. If more than 50% of NZers vote Labour/Greens why shouldn’t they have the right to govern?
LikeLike
The mistake you people are making is to believe we have a functioning democracy.
We don’t – we have an oligarchy. MPs are just figureheads who go along with the agenda. It’s why, for example the ETS exists, it is just a way for the in crowd to line their pockets at the expense of the peasantry, rubber stamped by compliant MPs who know what’s good for them
It’s why the only real difference between National and Labour is the leader of the Party – John Key versus Phil Goff.
At least with FPP you can get some independently minded MPs, which is why I’m voting for a change back
LikeLike
Andrei – MPs can act out of self interest under every system.
An MP working to keep a seat by supporting a local issue at national (and I do mean small n) cost isn’t democratic either.
LikeLike
Ele, one correction/mistake in many many posts. It just shows how alert and informed your readers are. You ought to do it more often.
But there is a serious point that voters do not know about the review of how to get it- You quote above :
“The campaign for MMP is telling voters they should vote for MMP to get a review of that system of voting.
But if a majority vote for change we will also get a review of MMP.
A second referendum will then be held allowing us to choose between MMP, with any changes to the system adopted from the review, and whichever alternative system most voters chose in the first referendum.
However, voting for MMP doesn’t guarantee you’ll get the changes you want or any changes at all.”
Is not plain and neither is the literature in voting papers
LikeLike
Of course they can but the idea of democracy is that we can get rid of them.
With MMP if they are in the “in crowd” they are safe no matter how repulsive their behaviour is to the poor saps whose lives they feel it is their right to f… over as they line their pockets and those of their mates.
We are doing it better than Zimbabwe to be fair though
LikeLike
Ouch!, Andrei. Was in Zimbabwe last year and things were looking better. On the internet recently to update info for a talk I was to give. Oh dear! Not only have they gone backwards but arguably got worse.
How about cap the Parliament at 90 MPs, do away with the list ones, and make “TROUGHING” an immediate suspension on no pay. Pay restored retrospectively if found not guilty.
Get back some accountability, including a much higher attendance rate in the house so debates are just that – a meaningful debate.
LikeLike