A nation in depression was the last thing we needed when apart from choosing the next government we're also to be asked to select our choice of governance system.
But hey, we won! So maybe a jubilant mood will act to lift the voter turnout.
One can hope.
Because it's important to turn out in force on election day, if only to vote in the referendum - and either nail MMP to the mast or choose a more proportional system.
Not that the systems on offer are (in my humble opinion) the best set of choices we could be given. But for what it's worth, here's the Left Hook snapshot take on the options you'll face on ballot day.
First Past The Post (FPP): The old dog with no new tricks, this heavyweight-parties-only system should not be exhumed. The myth it gave us "stable" government is just that; instead it gave us wild swings of polarised opinion and no real selective choice. Leave it buried.
Proportional Voting (PV): Yay! Not. As writ it's really FPP in clever drag, because the "proportions" would only apply to any single given electorate, not government as a whole.
So the major parties would garner most of the preferences, and we'd be back more-or-less to two-party representation.
If we were given a true PV option where the proportions determined the make-up of Parliament overall I'd back it whole hog, because that's genuine democracy. But no such luck; PV as offered is a wolf in a threadbare two-tone sheepskin. Don't let it fool you.
Supplementary Member (SM): Similarly, this is MMP crossed with FPP. A bob-each-way system that again favours big parties over anyone else, because only a quarter of parliamentary seats would be determined by the party vote. So you'd get a two-party system with a bare handful of "extras". Arguably the most unfair choice of the lot.
Mixed Member Proportional (MMP): What we have now. A good system, yes, but one that needs tweaking. Personally I'd like to see regional party lists of skilled locals you know something of, instead of a blanket like-or-lump-it lot you wouldn't know from A Dam.
Which logic brings me to my personal favourite: Single Transferable Vote (STV).
STV may be a confusing name but it's the best of both worlds because it allows you to pick a majority of a party you like as well as worthy individuals of other taints.
Or simply worthy individuals, full stop. And it ensures they are all "local".
It works like this: several electorates would be bundled together on a regional basis.
You'd then list the individuals you like by preference to make up the total for that region. The winners would be those the most number of people give the most highest preferences to.
In Hawke's Bay's case for example you might decide that two incumbents from one side, one from another, and a newcomer from elsewhere are your picks.
If everyone else more-or-less agrees with you, those are the four local MPs you'll get.
No lists. No outsiders. Just real individual choice.
Of course the party system doesn't like this grass-roots option. But how often and for how long do we complain that those elected are not people we would choose to place our trust in - but are "forced" to elect just for belonging to a party we favour?
So, this referendum I recommend you tick "yes" for keeping MMP but then tick STV as your preferred "other" system.
That way we make sure we keep a proportional system, but send a clear message that we want proper regional choice to be incorporated into it.
That's the right of it.
Bruce Bisset is a freelance writer and poet.
