Thank you, Alan, for your insights. It is indeed hard to look into a glass ball about a reality that is not in place.

I double checked with the CIA World Factbook, and I see first of all that New Zealand is unicameral. I had not realised that before and I think that is fantastic. Reducing the layers of representatives empowers the voters more. Like the US having three layers (House, Senate and President), this turns voter empowerment into a three-ring circus (many will agree on that circus, no matter what I say about the layers).

The one House in New Zealand has 72 members directly elected in 65 single-seat constituencies and 7 Maori constituencies by simple majority vote and 48 directly elected by closed party-list proportional representation vote.

That actually disappointed me because I thought it was 50% winner-take-all and 50% equal representation. Reading the outcome of seats per party, it does look like there is a leaning toward one big party (that has almost half the seats, which is unheard of in a well-functioning equal-representation nation) and the second party of about a quarter of the votes.

Another disappointment is that there are only 5 parties in total, and one of them has just a single seat.

The winner-take-all slant is very obvious still in place. I think New Zealanders would benefit if the votes were directly translated into the seats, the game element (with winners and empty-hand losers) removed from the voting system.

Let me end on a high note, because I do love how 47.5 percent of the seats are occupied by women. Given New Zealand's history, that is no surprise, but fantastic in a global comparison.

Thank you, Alan, for this communication. I appreciate your perspective, and of course, you do not need to agree with all I am saying. Thanks so much.