Reforming MMP
The Dom Post reports:
Labour MP David Parker welcomed the referendum, but said it should include reforming MMP itself as one of the options.
I’m not sure whether one does it as part of a the referenda, or seperately, but agree it would be good to review some aspects of MMP.
What do readers think are some of the changes that could improve MMP. Here are some of the options (note this does not mean I support them)
- Reduce threshold for list seats from 5% to 4% (as recommended by Royal Cmsn), or lower
- Remove threshold all together (means effectively around 0.8% gets you an MP)
- Increase electorate seat threshold for list seats from one electorate to two (or more)
- Remove winning an electorate seat as a way to qualify for list seats
- Waive the 5% threshold for “tangata whenua” parties and abolish the Maori seats (as recommended by Royal Cmsn)
- Increase the number of electorate seats from 70, and reduce the number of list seats form 50
- Set Parliament to have 60 electorate seats and 60 list seats
- Set Parliament to have an equal number of electorate and list seats (so size of Parliament will rise over time is the number of electorates increases due to faster population growth in the North Island)
- Ban dual candidacy so you can stand either in an electorate or on a list (note personally I think this is unworkable)
- term limits for MPs
- have “open” lists for parties so voters can change the order
Other suggestions welcome, plus views on the above.
No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)
Tags: MMP
October 21st, 2009 at 11:09 am
The idea of open lists has appeal, particularly in light of some of the people who have managed to slink in to parliament on a list after having been completely rejected by their electorate. (Margaret Wilson, come on down!). Assuming a list of preferentail voting, (!st, 2nd or 3rd preference) and an allocated value for each vote, the winning candidate gets the electorate, the remaining candidates take the votes they have earned, and the number of votes should determine position on the list. I also favout a 70/50 split for Electorate MP’s vs List MP’s. This will maintain an element of proportionality, and at the same time return a little more power to the voter from the party.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:19 am
It worries me that after all this time a significant number of people still have no idea of how MMP works. So while I think we could have a better system, will enough people really understand how it works? At least with FPP, everyone knew what they were getting.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
I think term limits are a bad idea when you consider it from a freedom perspective. If a candidate wants to stand, and has a constituency supporting him or her, then what possible explanation do you have for limiting this? it’s a subtle disenfranchisement.
I believe the concept gets support because we’re sick of seeing politicians that we hate get stuck at the top of the party list and they can never be removed. I hate that too, but remember there are other people supporting that party and by extension the list, so you’d be removing their freedom to chose their representatives.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:27 am
Open lists are a good idea, but work better on a regional basis. A voting paper with 500+ names on it would just be stupid.
I’d reduce the threshold – preferably zero – but nothing higher than 3% (basically enough for 4 MPs); if we’re to have a threshold 2.5% (enough for 3 MPs) seems about right, but 5% is way too high.
I’ve long been in support of the electorate seat exception, but someone recently put an argument against it to me that I couldn’t answer, so I’m now in favour of scrapping it, even if we don’t change the threshold. However, most of the arguments put forward by supporters of doing this are really bad arguments.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
Replace democracy with a benevolent dictatorship.
Just temporarily of course. Would save the government (whatever was left of it) a vast sum of money, which is what we want when the tax take is down.
I nominate DPF as temporary dictator.
(as long as he doesn’t recognise his many Antichrist-like attributes).
October 21st, 2009 at 11:29 am
I’ve long been in support of the electorate seat exception, but someone recently put an argument against it to me that I couldn’t answer
What was it?
October 21st, 2009 at 11:30 am
I like open lists as well, as well as removing the threshold and removing the winning electorate seat = list seats. Also remove Maori seats. Having said that, I would prefer shifting to STV as a voting system.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:33 am
These seem reasonable. Allows parties with a reasonably sized vote to get in, and eliminates one man band parties.
I like the idea of having more electorate seats, but also auto adjusting over time to keep the proportionality, so why not fix list seats at 75% (eg) of electorate seats? That would mean 69 electorate, 51 list. Plus overhang?
Sounds good in theory but yes, probably unworkable
Not sure about this, experience plus fresh ideas is a good mix to have. Maybe two term limit for PM. That ensures a fresh approach.
Not sure how this would work in practice. How many of the general voters would know about or take the time to research a big list? National may need 80 on their list next election. It may become a lottery like hospital boards and to a lesser extent councils.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:34 am
Honestly, I’m not sure that most people understood first-past-the-post either. Get them to explain how Muldoon or Lange got to be PM – I’m betting a pretty large number will tell you that people ’round the country voted for them.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:35 am
You could do any of those things but convert the system to Supplementary Member
So the Party Vote become proportional but only for the 50 seats (arbitrary figure)
That way single party would be given a mandate in landslide years but not for close elections
October 21st, 2009 at 11:37 am
The future shape of MMP is critical to the vote in the first referendum, so discussion on this is both welcome and timely. So, what are the perceived advantages and disadvantages of the present system?
One comment I hear often stated is that there are too many list members, who are perceived as doing little and are regarded (in blogging terminology) essentially as troughers. Is the perception correct?
There is too much influence from minor parties – influence that is disproportionate to their vote. For me, this means raising thresholds in some way, along with a reduction in the number of list seats.
Do we actually need list seats? Do away with them through another form of proportional representation? STV has advantages, but trials in local body elections have proved less than satisfactory. STV is perceived as being complicated, but I suspect that is essentially because it forces people to think a bit harder about their choices and order of them.
By the way, isn’t the first referendum essentially: ‘Do you want to return to FPP or retain some form of proportional representation?’ The second referendum then becomes ‘Which form of proportional representation do you want?’ The way the referenda are set out gives MMP two bites at the cherry, i.e. it is biased in favour of the status quo.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:44 am
The really bad argument is: “it’s unfair that ACT gets MPs, but NZF voters don’t.” This is wrong. It is absolutely fair that ACT voters get MPs, the only unfairness is that NZF voters don’t. The solution to NZF voters being disenfranchised is not to disenfranchise ACT voters as well, but to give NZF the MPs they earned.
The really good argument goes something like: this is a democracy, everyone’s vote should be equal, the voters of Wellington Central elected Grant Robertson; the voters of Auckland Central elected Nikki Kaye, the voters of Epsom elected Rodney Hide and Heather Roy and John Boscawen, and Roger Douglas, and David Garrett.
The electorate seat exception to the threshold gives some voters a massive amount of say over who gets to be in Parliament – influence out of all proportion with their numbers. Giving some voters such unequal voting power – based on where they live, or any other basis – just cannot be justified in a democracy premised on “one person, one vote, all votes of equal value.”
October 21st, 2009 at 11:47 am
Well said, Graeme.
So remove the threshold, keep electorate and list seats equal with each other, and remove the electorate win getting you list seats?
October 21st, 2009 at 11:50 am
1. Remove the South Island quota and fix the number of seats nationally at 100. Increases to be allowed only by referendum to be held at each election (to take effect from the following one).
2. Abolish the Maori seats as envisaged at the time of their creation.
Rationale …. we are one country, there is no longer room for parochial or racial advantage (or disadvantage depending on your viewpoint).
October 21st, 2009 at 11:52 am
Dumping the lot and banging in a married couple to run the joint seems best to me.
October 21st, 2009 at 11:54 am
Ryan – basically, although I’m not sure that the number of electorate seats has to equal the number of list seats (if that’s what you were suggesting).
Of couse if you don’t have a threshold then having an exception to the threshold is pretty pointless
October 21st, 2009 at 12:15 pm
I’d like to see coalitions announced before the election for people to vote on, rather than after the election in smoke filled rooms.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
I obviously have a vested interest in the electoral system as a (list) member of a minor party who would not be in parliament under FPP. Neither of course would any of the rest of us except Rodney.
I note the sensible and thoughtful comments by Graeme Edgeler – but am very surprised at his preference for removing the threshold altogether, or at least lowering it substantially. Countries with proportional systems without a threshold – or a very low one – are inherently unstable, because – as Graeme notes – only a small number of votes are needed to get representation. That leads to legislatures with 10 or more parties, and wonky coalitions which don’t last. Israel and Italy are the best examples in the Western world. That in turn leads to instability of government being the norm, and elections – with all their cost and inconvenience – being more often necessary. I can’t see how that can be an improvement.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:22 pm
VALID POINT. I have a head cold.
Re: equalling, I was only thinking in terms of increasing numbers of seats as the population increases, to maintain the capacity for proportional representation.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:24 pm
I’d like to see every MP face an electorate. I would prefer FPP, but if not…
WHy not add to the current system of an electorate vote and a party vote, a third vote. This would be an STV vote on each party list. Voters would rank list candidates if they cared to. This way list MPs would be more accountable to voters. With computerisation it shouldn’t be difficult to process, and not too hard to explain: rank these turkeys in order of aptitude.
Failing this, let’s ban conscience votes. They are unfair. When a list MP votes on a conscience issue he or she is answerable to no-one, and that ain’t democracy.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:48 pm
No reduction to threshhold – we already have multi-party groupings, would only get much worse (with the greatest respect to the individuals do we want Bill & Ben in parliament?). Get rid of the electorate seat exception – creates unfairness where not all votes are equal. Avoid anything that requires voters to rank lists – they struggle with two ticks already. Increase the number of electorate seats while reducing the number of list (this is gut reaction – should do some analysis on impact really).
My preference in STV but we will probably find the status quo will be hard to change
October 21st, 2009 at 12:52 pm
A) If they had a chance of getting in, they possibly would have had fewer votes.
B) Perhaps they would have had more votes if they had a chance of getting in.
C) It doesn’t matter if “we” want Bill & Ben in Parliament – it matters if enough voters want them in.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:53 pm
Increase the electorate seat requirement for additional list seats from 1 electorate to 2.
This will reduce the number of joke parties (United Future, Progressives), and the issue of individual electorates having their own political party.
Make the ranking of the lists determined by proportion of the vote in the electorate an MP stands in (ie the first nat or lab mp in on the list is their best loser) and will give list MPs a constituency to represent (also it would give Labour voters in Epsom or National voters in Mt Albert effective representation).
This would also enable voters to remove a minister from a sitting government.
In my opinion, the most important practical effect of an election is to remove unpopular governments. I suspect that the signal from the electorate was avoided in 1996 and 2005 which in both cases led to 3 very poor years of governance.
October 21st, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Agree with lowering the threshold from 5 percent. It is still unbelievably difficult for parties outside parliament to have a fair run in an election. A lower threshold would remove much of the insider advantage of incumbent parties.
Lowering the threshold would lessen the excuse for the electorate coat tail rule.
While more electorate seats would be welcome, it would make the Auckland Supercity council wards even stupider looking than at present! Don’t agree with a cap on MP numbers. Even under FPP, there was an appreciation of an increasing voter base.
A ban on dual candidacy and term limits would be better served as conventions and not legal proscription. By their deeds shall ye know them!
October 21st, 2009 at 1:04 pm
Not sure that term limits is a good idea really, a lot of MP’s find it difficult to find employment once they leave or are kicked out of Parliament.
If we do impose term limits you would have many MP’s pushing for huge pay increases based on the probability that they need to make as much money as they can during their time in the house to compensate for being unemployed or unemployable once they leave.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:36 pm
The most important democratic principle of political equality – notwithstanding public acceptance of an election result – is the principle of one person one vote, one vote one value. That’s part of my reasoning for retaining the Maori parliamentary seats. I also agree with Graeme that the 5% threshold is too high, but disagree with it being reduced right down to 0%. Even 1% is too low. that would lead to multi party alliances of unrelated parties so one of their leaders could get into parliament.Still, that is a debate we should have before unilaterally deciding between two electoral systems in a binding referendum. I have an open mind about open lists , and support the one seat threshold. None of the Act Party would be in parliament under a two seat threshold and the Epsom/Ohariau/Wigram voters would not have their chosen representative in parliament.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Someone in another blog last year was advocating having only one vote, which counts for both the electorate and the list vote, eliminating vote splitting and the overhang issue. It would mean that if the candidate was not the best but you liked the party, or the party was useless but you liked the candidate it would be a more difficult voting decision.
The plus would be that people getting in on the list would be incentivised to work for a broader constituency in their community than just the people who vote for their party. It would get rid of this thing where people say don’t vote for me but give your vote to my party, this is just gaming the system and is perverse. Instead they would have to compete for their electorate to increase their party vote. Other than the overhang issue the threshold seems a bit high, maybe drop it to a level where a party would have enough votes for 2 MPs – enough to keep Bill and Ben etc out. That should cut down all the obsessing over whether a party is going to win a seat to bring in others off the list which is just a distraction from policy matters during election time.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:40 pm
In general, as far as electoral systems go, I’d prefer STV over MMP…I think. It at least gives each MP an electorate to which he’s accountable. Of course, the easier it is to boot out an MP, the less proportional the voting system must be.
If we’re to stick with MMP, I would want to see a party requiring at least two MPs before it qualifies for an exemption. I’m also OK with lowering the threshold, but wouldn’t want it to drop too low (cf. earlier comments about a highly fragmented Parliament and weak or unstable government). I’d say no lower than 3%. I’d expand that by saying that any MP who is the sole representative of his party gets treated as an independent MP (at least for funding and so forth). I think that’s how they work in Germany, where you need at least three seats to be considered a “party”; I wouldn’t raise the bar so high here, because Germany has about three times as many electorates as NZ does.
Furthermore, I’d want to keep a rough balance between number of electorate MPs and number of list MPs. What’s the point of MMP if we’re going to move towards SM by stealth (raising the proportion of electorate seats gradually)?
I’d be in favour of term limits, only for list MPs. Philosophically, however attractive term limits may be, I don’t see any justification for forcibly removing an electorate MP as long as he retains the confidence of his electorate (except, of course, for misbehaviour or incapacity). But I see no problem with expecting list MPs to move on after three terms, so that at least they can be replaced with someone with fresh ideas. The exception to that might be a list MP who gains Ministerial office; I can see that you might need a term or two to get experience of Parliament before being appointed as a Minister. If we were to do that, I’d also suggest limits on the size of the Executive Council/Cabinet, so Prime Ministers can’t make large numbers of “token” ministerial appointments for the sake of keeping useful (to the PM) but nondescript Members in Parliament.
October 21st, 2009 at 1:51 pm
bka – a single vote, acting as both the electorate vote and the party vote, would not get rid of overhang.
October 21st, 2009 at 2:49 pm
Graeme, well I don’t know enough about how the numbers play out to argue. It seems to me it would at least reduce the effect of it, and parties would be somewhat discouraged from pursuing a strategy based on it; any electorate votes they wouldn’t get would also be party votes lost.
October 21st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Most people, the vast majority, have neither the time nor inclination to learn how a complicated voting system works. Even in Germany most people don’t understand the system despite it being in place for 50 or so years.
It’s interesting that voter turn out has been falling despite having a system which the “experts” say is fairer and more engaging.
Voters in general don’t like a system that ends up with the bull and the toreador shaking hands/hoof at the end and then going out of the ring to do a deal with third parties while the crowd sits and waits.
Political insiders vastly overrate ‘fairness’ in the system, looking to tweak things for a perfect solution. The more you complicate things the lower the turnout and the greater the discontent. Under MMP you can’t vote the bastards out. That’s a major drawback.
Under STV it comes down to name recognition – what a yawn those DHB voting lists are.
Bring back the winners and losers under FPP!
October 21st, 2009 at 3:13 pm
The possible change is obviously being spun out over 9 years as a concession to the minor Gvt. Support Parties, even so If the vote is for change at the next election that should mean that MMP has been defeated and should not re-appear as an option at the following election. The winning system should be chosen by the STV method. Overwhelmingly I favour the Swiss System which has resulted in stable prosperous Government by the will of the people. I bet all our political parties will be unified in keeping it off the option list however.
October 21st, 2009 at 4:56 pm
Why does Act have 1 electorate and the rest list mp’s?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
jackp – I assume you’re looking for an answer other than: because they won one electorate contest and got enough party votes over the whole country to get four list MPs?
Because that’s the answer.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:07 pm
Whoa, whoa, whoa, Edgeler. Back up the explanation trolley. Where do the reptilian shapeshifters fit into your “answer”?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:15 pm
# jackp -
Because all sorts of lazy, good-for-nothing socialist lefties who’ve never done a day’s work in their lives are getting into parliament “through the back door” – i.e. from student politics straight onto Labour & Green party lists. Apparently. Just ask any of the stalwarts around here.
But Act list MPs are JUST DIFFERENT, OK?
October 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
Personally, I would be strongly in favour of removing the threshold for list seats altogether, and dramatically reducing the “power” of electorate seats. It seems to me that electorate seats were given as consolation to supporters of FPP, and have no real place in MMP. Reasons:
1. Supporters of minor parties can effectively get 2 votes. This has so far only been utilised by the Maori Party, whose supporters vote for Maori Party candidates in the electorates, and another party of their choice with the party vote. It seems absurd that the Maori party can get the same amount of seats in Parliament as ACT with barely half the level of support in the party vote, by electing a whole bunch of electorate MPs. If only ACT voters started abusing the system in this way, National could get 50-60% of the party vote and ACT could get dozens of electorate MPs without winning even 1% of the party vote.
2. Electorate votes are a stupid concept in themselves. The whole point of MMP is to avoid the “all or nothing” style of FPP which made things very difficult for minor parties. Yet electorate seats remain just that. If people want an electorate MPs representing their area, there must be a better way.
3. This would also make the voting system simpler as the party vote would be the only thing that mattered.
As for term limits for MPs, this would be a very interesting possibility to explore further. I would certainly love to see the end of career troughers like Jim Anderton.
October 21st, 2009 at 5:48 pm
I Like MMP and want ti to stay but don’t like a few aspects. So would like to see
Threshold dropped down to 2 or 3% with no automatic top up if you get a electorate seat- Stops the dropkick parties getting in (hopefully) but stops the Progressive/Act top ups.
Abolish the Maori seats but allow “Maori” parties to have no threshold- Keeps representation but reduces the perceived two votes for the left in the Maori seats (doesn’t stop the two voted for the right in Epsom though unless National put up a decent candidate)
Put a limit on the number of electorate candidates on the list, and name them before the election. That way the Top say ten candidates could be protected but none further down.
pipe dream I fear though
October 21st, 2009 at 5:55 pm
I think a few things that could be addressed many are expressed above and I don’t think they all are good and some would not work well in combination with others
1. Regional Lists
I think four regions are probably enough (Auckland, Northern North Island, Southern North Island and South Island)
If you go much smaller you lose proportionality
2. How to address Maori representation
Option include
- status quo
- separate ‘region’ for Maori voter
- lower threshold for Maori Parties
- those on Maori Option vote in a general seat (therefore get local representative who is the same as other people in nearby region) however list candidates are a Maori option list for them. This could be too complicated, it would mean more Maori seats.
3. Threshold
I tend to think 4% would be best, none would get too many nutters elected (people who disagree might look at Israel for example of why we need a threshold).
If we go for regional list I would think 5% in that region would be a sensible cut off, rather than a national cut off.
The lowest threshold would be 3% on a national basis. I certainly would look at increasing the threshold
4. Overhang
I favour overhang not increasing the size of parliament so in NZ latest election I would reduce the parliament to 120 by removing a National and Green member (the 120th and 119th members)
5. Calculation methods
New Zealand uses the Sainte-Laguë method
Where as many countries use the D’Hondt method which returns slightly less proportional results
I personal support the status quo but think it should be investigated
6. Term of Parliament
I support 4 years, with set dates unless agreed by 2/3 of parliament so a government can’t call an early election that helps it.
7. Restrictions on list/ term limits etc
I don’t favour term limits. However it seems that many people who lose seats are then elected from the list.
I know open list could address this.
With closed list you could restrict to say (this is an example not the only option) only 2 in 10 list members can be sitting members of parliament. I think this would need to have regional lists. It would allow small parties to keep some degree of continuing MPs, while preventing MPs from getting back when rejected by their electorate (to some degree)
8. Size of electorates
Examine allowing rural electorates to be smaller. Exact size is not needed in MMP as the list vote will fix most abnormalities.
October 21st, 2009 at 6:27 pm
@David Garrett/Inky_The_Red: I can’t see how having a lower threshold than 4 or 5% would hurt.
The problem with Italy and Israel is that they’re not exactly average democratic states. Italy has had political instability under PR, and under Supplementary Member (in the 1990’s), and even more recently (2007-) when they seem to have raised the threshold. (two parties getting 3% and 2.5% did not get any seats –> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_general_election,_2008)
The instability is more due to the region rather than the system, in both cases – Israel’s being a crazy politico-religious situation that we simply don’t have in NZ.
I could use The Netherlands and Switzerland as counter-examples of this – both have low/zero thresholds (H: 0.66% / S:1% if anything) and usually quite stable govts.
Any threshold risks ignoring the votes of 50000 to 100,000 individuals, and should only be there to stop joke parties and one issue polticians/morons. 2% would be enough for 3 seats, and would not exactly see a proliferation of minor parties with no viability. Since 1996, the only parties that have polled over this (and recieved no seats) have been NZ First, The Christian Coalition and Christian Heritage.
(Of course many people will say that the above ARE one-issue morons – that’s no reason to ignore 90,000 voters.)
October 21st, 2009 at 6:55 pm
@Inky: “I think four regions are probably enough (Auckland, Northern North Island, Southern North Island and South Island)
If you go much smaller you lose proportionality”
That’s the thing – with reducing it down to four regions, you still lose a bit of proportionality. I’m not sure what the figure is for 15 seats (which is about what it would be), but for 9-seat areas, a party needs 10% or more just to get one seat.
So this could mean that a threshold wasn’t actually needed anymore.
Open lists would be cool, and have a couple of features in their favour, but how many people will actually use them, vs people that will whine that the whole system is too complicated?
October 21st, 2009 at 7:29 pm
You can have a national top-up to ensure overall proportionality. Say 90 MPs being those elected in the regions, and 30 MPs taken from the regional lists to make sure things are proportional overall. The 30 MPs would be the best MPs who just missed out from each regional list needed to ensure proportionality overall.
October 21st, 2009 at 7:40 pm
@winston
A possible problem of region is that the number of people who vote in regions in NZ varies for a number of reason. Two of these are
South Islanders and rural people are more likely to vote than northern city dwellers. An Otago region might be allocated 7% seats but the number of votes might be 8%. How are seats allocated to that region?
Representation in NZ has been based on population where as seats are (currently) allocated by proportion of votes. Some regions have young populations.
If population is still the basis of representation then voters in area where medium age is low then the number of seats allocated then there will be some bias in votes cast in NZ compared to seats won.
I don’t think these are big issues. However if we go the regional route then they have to be acknowledged.
As for smaller regions, I am not sure that they are needed. If you look at the population spread in the South Island you really only have two options;
1 region south Island wide
or 3 regions Southland/ Otago, the area around Christchurch, and the Northern part (these would not have the same population and the exact boundaries could be in a variety of places)
In the North Island, Northland is the hard part to assign. By itself Northland is probably too small (in terms of population). Perhaps with part of Auckland?
October 21st, 2009 at 10:11 pm
As Inky_the_Red said
This is really important I think, the current situation where the incumbent govt set’s the election date is as undemocratic as Epsom voters voting in 5 members of Parliament ( though one could argue Epsom voters merely allowed the people around the rest of NZ who voted ACT to have their votes recognised, in effect making one person one vote a reality ).
October 21st, 2009 at 10:58 pm
I’d get rid of the electorates. At present the electorate vote is a waste of time (unless you live in Epsom or Maori seat). At present some seats (especially in Wellington and Auckland) get 3 or 4 members so parliament is not geographically representative anyway.
The important thing is that everyone in parliament has somebody in parliament who represents your ideas and locality. If the parties decide not to do that they will suffer the consequences.
October 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
If we keep MMP we should have a serious look at referenda for moral or conscience issues. Under FPP in theory an MP was answerable to his or her electorate on a conscience vote. If they had a very safe seat they did not have as much concern at one on a marginal seat but in theory they were answerable. Under MMP list MPs are answerable to no one.
October 24th, 2009 at 6:30 am
Take away the right of parties to determine the ranking of candidates on their Party list.
List MP’s could be appointed from a party’s highest polling unsuccessful electorate candidates.
At least this way, a list MP can claim to have received some personal mandate from voters.