Yet in the 2011 general election around 30 per cent of New Zealanders who were eligible to vote did not. Although a record low, this was in keeping with a long term trend of declining voter turnout.
We are not alone in this but our turnout decline is particularly sharp, especially in the last three decades -f rom 89 per cent in 1981 to 69 per cent in 2011.
Age is a key factor as younger voters tend to vote less than older ones.
According to Professor Jack Vowles, only 41 per cent of under-30 year olds enrolled and voted in the last election in contrast to the 72 per cent turnout for those over 30.
What is more, the turnout rate for young voters is declining steeply -a 20 per cent drop since the 1996 election.
New Zealand's falling turnout is being driven by a generational change in voting patterns.
Each new generation is less likely to vote than the previous one, not only when they are young but also as they age.
The context of the election is another important factor: turnout tends to be higher when the election is thought to be close and lower when it is seen as a 'foregone conclusion'.
Hence turnout was up in 2005 and down in 2011.
But how does the voter gauge when an election is close in an MMP election? The experience of 2011 provides some important lessons.
With polling showing National well ahead of Labour through- out the campaign, it was widely assumed that National would 'win' -easily.
The prevailing theory is this led to National supporters staying home because they believed their votes 'weren't needed', and Labour supporters not voting because the election was already lost.
If this was the case, then these voters misunderstood MMP.
In MMP there is no such thing as an unneeded vote.
Every vote counts towards a party's seat total. What's more, coming second in the party vote, even by a reasonable margin, does not necessarily mean the election is lost.
The fundamental principle of our Westminster parliamentary system is that the government must maintain 'the confidence of the House'.
This means the government is formed by the party or grouping of parties that can muster a working majority in Parliament. And while, so far, under MMP this governing bloc has been led by the largest party in Parliament, it doesn't have to be.
MMP elections are not ad rag race to the finish line between the two leading parties. It is misleading then to simply focus on the gap between National and Labour; with MMP it is more important to view the support for possible governing coalitions.
The success of the whole coalition of parties, including its smaller ones, is crucial to winning the election and governing. So what does all this mean for you as a voter heading into Election Day?
First, it is a risky business under MMP to assume a' foregone conclusion' and make the decision not to vote, especially based on the polling of National and Labour alone.
Second, in an MMP election it is important to think in terms of potential governing blocs.
This makes MMP election results more difficult to predict, especially if polling doesn't capture well the likely outcome for the medium and smaller sized parties.
Finally, as a result, MMP election results are often closer than they appear to be during the campaign.
Election campaigns typically throw up some surprises and the 2014 campaign has certainly had its fair share of these.
These surprises can make elections unpredictable affairs. One thing is certain though -t his election could be decided not only by how people vote, but also by whether they vote.
Dr Therese Arseneau is a political scientist and a Senior Fellow in the School of Social and Political Sciences at the University of Canterbury.
