A vote for SM

Recent correspondence has referred to the shortcomings of First Past the Post (FPP) versus Mixed Member Proportional (MMP) systems, but this is not a

binary choice. Supplementary Member (SM) would give us a halfway house between FPP and MMP.

Under SM the list seats are divided as a proportion of the party vote without including electoral seats. If the 2017 election had been held under SM the results would have been, with actual results in brackets: National 63 (56); Labour 48 (46); NZ First 4 (9); Greens 3 (8); ACT 1 (1); TOP 1 (0).

As an example, the 1981 election: if there were one list seat for every two electorate seats there would have been 92 electorate and 46 list seats, giving 138 seats. The result would have been, with the actual results in brackets : National 65 (47); Labour 61 (43); Social Credit 12 (2).

There has been recent

suggestion that we have 150 seats in Parliament to account for population growth. I would suggest we have 100 electoral seats and 50 list seats. There would be no need for a list threshold, as it would be 2.5 per cent, negating stitch-up electoral deals between parties.

Small parties would still have a voice, but there would much less chance of the tail wagging the dog. Importantly, SM would increase the importance of electorate MPs, and would (rightly in my opinion) adversely affect list-only parties.

Supplementary Member is worthy of consideration as an alternative to MMP. We do not have to go back to FPP.

Graham Sharpe, Strathmore

In his curious opposition to FPP, Callum Townsend (Letters, Nov 7)

maintained, ‘‘FPP is as good as saying, I don’t care about democracy, so long as my team wins.’’

Well, aside from our MMPdecided coalition’s demonstrable failings in such necessary fields as talent and administrative capability, does Mr Townsend’s understanding of democracy go sufficiently deep to question the system-weakening absurdity of party-positioned list MPs who could never win electoral seats being accorded full parliamentary status?

Some like Andrew Little, rejected twice by his electorate! How does he remotely qualify to be a minister? And what about Julie Anne Genter peddling dogmaderived interference that has never been electorate-tested. Such are just scratching the surface.

Government has to be exercised for the good of the country. Is any system ‘‘fair’’ if it enables nonelectorate-tested, self-interested inepts and incompetents to become MPs?

Jim Cable, Nelson