As a result public unhappiness towards the improportionate Parliament during the 1980s, the Royal Commission came up with ten criteria to assess the best system and suggested a change to the MMP system. The few most important criteria are the fairness between political parties, effectiveness of parties and Parliament and even the political integration (Elections New Zealand, 2012). These criteria are not met in a FPP system as it tends to create a single-majority party in the parliament. The fairness between parties is defined as the proportionality between the total party votes and number of seats, gained by any parties (Elections New Zealand, 2012). The effectiveness of parties has the definition that the parties should always play their roles to create a more efficient and democratic country and to provide a more effective representation for the society of New Zealand (Elections New Zealand, 2012). In addition, the best voting system always provides an improved parliamentary role such as passing policies, enacting legislation and provide better services which is defining the effectiveness of Parliament. The political integration, then, outlined the opinions and points of view of all groups and parties should all be respected and adopted (Elections New Zealand, 2012). By assessing all the criteria above, the best voting system must be the one system that best meets them. Although it is obvious that the MMP system is the best possible system as New Zealand had decided to adopt it, MMP could still be improved to be a better system.

After many analyse and assessment, the Royal Commission eventually came up with a recommendation of changing the FPP system to the MMP system which is based on the few criteria above. First of all, the MMP system fulfilled the first criteria as it provides a fair and proportionate system whereby the total party votes will be symmetric to the total number of seats gained in the parliament (Campaign for MMP, n.d.). It is considered fair as any decision made in the Parliament has to be either by coalition or by relying on other parties in which this action would stop any extreme policy (Armstrong, 2011). Besides, the effectiveness of the parties and Parliament could also be seen in the MMP system through which the system shows representative as the Parliament could speculate the public in New Zealand (Campaign for MMP, n.d.). The effectiveness could also be seen through the numbers of women and minority ethnic groups who gain seats in the Parliament gradually increase which is much more representative (Armstrong, 2011).

One of the issues by the Electoral Referendum Act 2010 that will be reviewed is the threshold for winning a seat in the House. Currently, there are two thresholds in the New Zealand system which are a percentage of five or more in the party vote and a winning vote in the electorate. The commission itself had modelled some scenarios on the percentage threshold which are a four percent threshold with overhang and without overhang (Elections New Zealand, 2012). Many parties prefer to lower the threshold to the minimum of four percent (Farrar, 2012; If MMP stays, 2011). They all came to one point stating that reducing the threshold could reduces the wasted vote (Farrar, 2012; If MMP stays, 2011). We can clearly view this point from the result of the 2008 election where 95,356 voters' votes, which made up 4.07% of the total national vote, are being wasted as the New Zealand First Party did not get any seats (New Zealand Ministry of Justice, 2008). Another strong evidence supporting a lower threshold is by the (Gross, 2007) stating that a good democratic country should have a lower threshold because a democratic country requires a maximum amount of opinions.

On the other hand, remaining the 5% threshold also brings some advantages to the system. To support this argument, Thomas (2011) stated that retaining the 5% threshold is appropriate as this will prevent or at least reduce large fragmentation and ineffectiveness inside the Parliament. This is because a 5% threshold will have fewer minority parties in the Parliament and, therefore, could speed up the process to have better functionality. A 5% threshold also brings benefits as it is proven by the New Zealand's Parliament itself. Since the first general election in 1996, the 5% threshold has been used, and since then, the Parliament is still producing and working effectively. Many might say lowering and raising the threshold but looking at the result of implementing a 5% threshold for almost two decades, it is illogical to find reasons to modify it.

In my opinion, based on the arguments regarding threshold, a lower threshold percentage might be the best option for New Zealand. Although the government in the current state is governing well, we should all go towards a better and a more democratic country. A democratic country involves having many different ideas and opinions from a maximum number of groups to have a fair and representative government. This is to fulfill all the society's wishes and voices which is the principle of democracy. In order to have these to happen in New Zealand, a 4 % threshold, as suggested by the Royal Commission, would be effective. As the threshold goes lower, more minority parties gain seats in the parliament which, therefore, forces larger minority groups to participate and work together with the smaller minority groups.

Dual candidacy will be the second issue that will be critically review on. In the current New Zealand MMP system, dual candidacy, which is basically a candidate standing for both the electorate vote and in the party list, is permitted. There are few groups like Thomas (2011) stating that he stands for the dual candidacy. One of the reason stated by Thomas (2011) is that dual candidancy may help to produce or get the best possible candidates. For instance, a candidate that managed to get into the Parliament through the party list can still perform as good as other electorate Members of Parliament (MPs) such as Winston Peter who had done great work for New Zealand. Another argument for having the dual candidacy is that the candidates that lose in the electoral voting should still be given a second chance as they really did their best effort in campaigning for the election (find one).

Even so, some says that retaining the dual candidacy is not good to the MMP system. A poll had been held in regards of public views towards dual candidacy, and half of the voters would like to ban dual candidacy (Thomas, 2011). They give similar reason which is related to back door MPs where the MPs are able to get into the Parliament although the public did not choose them (Thomas, 2011). This, therefore, brings up an issue regarding the legitimacy. This article also supported that dual candidacy brings unfairness because the party will still get a seat although it had lost an electorate, either from another member from the party list or the same member who lost the electorate (Whaleoil, 2012).

Based on the logical arguments regarding the dual candidacy, it is clear that New Zealand government should leave dual candidacy unchanged. It might brings up certain unfairness, but dual candidacy might also produce some good men to the Parliament which then make the Parliament to be effective. It is a matter of weighing between unfairness and effectiveness, and effectiveness may outweigh the unfairness in this case. To continue the usage of dual candidacy is also suggested by the Royal Commission as it stated that it is unapplicable if candidates are not able to both compete in an electorate and on the party list (Edgeler, 2012).

The MMP voting system seem to be going well in New Zealand as it has been implemented for almost two decades after replacing the FPP in 1996. However, everything will have some disadvantages so as the MMP system. There are some review on why New Zealand has replace FPP with MMP followed by two critical review on the current issues set up by the Electoral Commission. Reducing the threshold to four percent might help to improve the fairness in the Parliament. The effectiveness of parties could be improved provided that the dual candidacy is kept unchanged. However, any good system should always be improving from time to time as to fulfill the needs of the particular time.

Armstrong, J. (2011). Referendum 2011: A look at MMP. Retrieved from http://www.rotoruadailypost.co.nz/news/referendum-2011-look-mmp/1167449/
Campaign for MMP. (n.d.). Why MMP is a fair voting system?. Retrieved from http://www.campaignformmp.org.nz/sites/default/files/Quick-guide-2-MMP.pdf
Edgeler, G. (2012). MMP Review #2: Dual Candidacy. Retrieved from http://publicaddress.net/legalbeagle/mmp-review-2-dual-candidacy/
Elections New Zealand. (2012). Basis for Eligibility for List Seats (The Thresholds). Retrieved from http://www.mmpreview.org.nz/the-issues/overview/basis-eligibility-list-seats-thresholds
Elections New Zealand. (2012). Royal Commission criteria for judging voting systems. Retrieved from http://www.elections.org.nz/study/researchers/rc-voting-system-judging-criteria.html#gen0
Farrar, D. (2012). What should the MMP threshold be?. Retrieved from http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/blogs/david-farrar-by-the-numbers/6410765/What-should-the-MMP-threshold-be
Gross, A. (2007). Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly. Retrieved from http://assembly.coe.int/main.asp?Link=/documents/workingdocs/doc07/edoc11203.htm
If MMP stays - would you make any changes?. (2011). Retrieved from http://vote.co.nz/2011/q-and-a/if-mmp-stays-would-you-make-any-changes
New Zealand Ministry of Justice. (2008). Official Count Results - Overall Status. Retrieved from http://www.electionresults.govt.nz/electionresults_2008/partystatus.html
Thomas, S. (2011). Enhancing MMP: How to improve New Zealand's current voting system. Retrieved from http://www.maxim.org.nz/files/pdf/Enhancing%20MMP.pdf
Whaleoil. (2012). MMP review - Zombie MPs. Retrieved from http://www.whaleoil.co.nz/2012/04/mmp-review-zombie-mps/