So much cool stuff. So little time.

Why I'm Supporting MMP

By Steve Withers, in , posted: 21-Nov-2011 11:20

[Update: I've turned moderation on for comments for Election Day. I'll approve any comments and turn moderation off after the polls close.]

 I wasn't going to post about this on Geekzone, but someone else has and I think the issue deserves a few moments of my time. :-)

I support MMP for several reasons:

1. It is a fair, proportional system where each of our party votes has the same potential power to elect representatives provided we reach the 5% threshold or the party we support wins one seat.

2. My party vote lets me help to elect a whole swag of MPs from the party I support from across the whole country.  It isn't limited to 1/120th of the country. I can vote for - and elect - several people from the 'team' I support...and the party vote is a vote with *nationwide* effect. It is not limited to just one tiny electorate or a single candidate. My MMP party vote is my Big Picture vote and NO OTHER system offered allows us to do this. 

3. My party vote gives me a way to vote positively for the party I support. I do not have to vote "against" anyone as almost always had to do in the bad old days.

4. I like list MPs. They are the people who genuinely represent me. My local MP is *always* from a party I do not support and definitely does not share my views on many, many topics.  Too many local MPs are long-serving party hacks who still date from the pre-MMP era having entered Parliament 20 years ago...and more. I'd like to do away with local MPs completely. 

Some don't like candidates being on both the local ballot and on the list. I have NO problem with this at all as it is plain to me there are two ways to elect MPs: locally and nationally. I do not confuse the two. A candidate they might not like in Taihape (or they like them almost enough and may just have come second) might be seen as simply awesome in Masterton, but they can't stand in both places. 

It's obvious to me that if you said candidates could not run locally and on the list, you would very soon find that no one in their right mind would stand AT ALL locally unless they thought they were certain to win. Such a restriction would effectively reserve the local seats - at best - for two candidates only. Some might not even be contested at all where people always vote one way. Why would anyone "waste" a good candidate in a local seat that can't win when it would make much more sense to have them on the party list? 

Leave it is as it is or get rid of local  seats altogether. Banning locals from also being on the list would convert local seats - effectively - into rotten boroughs for the worst party hacks...and local voters would be left with little choice.  


I don't like FPP because:

1. It gives 100% of the power to a single minority party the majority of voters did not support. If you hate "minority" parties having "too much power" then FPP would have to be the very worst of them, giving the whole lot to just one party who might have only 38% support (National 1981).

2. Under FPP, my vote is limited to just one candidate in just one of 120 electorates. The other 119 MPs are *completely* beyond my reach and utterly unaccountable to me in any way.  

3. FPP wastes votes and thereby steals seats from other parties and gives them to the party supported by the largest MINORITY. It is rare for a person to be elected with more than 50% of the local vote. Most people didn't want that person, but FPP saw them elected anyway. In the 2010 Auckland Council elections the two people elected in Albany Ward each got less than 10% of the vote and the other 80%+ of votes cast elected exactly no one. Across wider Auckland, 62.5% of votes cast for Auckland Council elected no one at all thanks to FPP. Of the 20 members of the Auckland Council, 13 of them didn't even get 30% of the vote in their ward. FPP is awful. 

4. For 20 years under FPP I never elected anyone. That sucks. No thanks. 


1. PV is a clever way to elect one person most people didn't actually want. The object of PV is still to give 100% of the power to a single minority party most people don't actually support and was not their first choice.  

2. PV only lets me vote in 1 of the 120 electorates. The other 119 MPs are completely beyond my reach and are utterly unaccountable to me. If I live in a safe seat for a major party I don't support, I may as well not bother voting. In Australia, there are seats that have been held by a party for 50 years and more. People who live there effectively have no one they want to represent them if they did not vote for that person. 


1. SM is another system trying very hard to give all the power to one minority party the majority of voters didn't vote for. It does this by effectively "stealing" seats from minor parties by discounting their party votes to 25% of their present value....and the lion's share of the list seats will go to the two major parties who are already able to win the local seats with as little as 33% of the vote locally (or 32% if you want to look at Peter Dunne in Ohariu-Belmont).  FPP again...and it's terrible.

2. SM limits your votes to just 1 of 90 electorates and a 25% discounted share of the list.  The other 89 local MPs are completely beyond your reach and utterly unaccountable to you.

3. If you don't like one minority party the majority didn't vote for having all the power, then you don't want SM.  


1. STV can be proportional if there are enough people running in each district. The proposal put forward suggest districts of 3 members in rural areas and 7 members in urban areas. The result would be non-proportional outcomes in those rural areas that would tend to favour the party that does well in rural areas. That would usually be....National. Meanwhile, in urban areas, with 7 members the outcomes would be more proportional, but at the same time giving the best shot to parties who don't normally form the laregst minority in urban areas.....(again...National). This highlights my major problem with STV: It is too easy to gerrymander by fiddling with the numbers in each district and the boundaries of the districts overall. The STV system proposed would exaggerate the position of a party with strong rural support and disadvantage parties less strong in rural areas. (MMP can't be gerrymandered: 10% of the vote gets you 10% of the seats. End of story).  

2. STV limits my vote to just one district. MPs from other districts are utterly unaccountable to me. if I live in a rural district with just 3MPs, I'll probably find I can only elect someone I want with great difficulty if they aren't the party most people round here vote for. 
2. But STV is the best of the alternate systems and definitely will be my choice on the second vote......but it is poor second to MMP.  


The parties choose all the candidates who ever win seats no matter which system you adopt. There hasn't been a true independent (not previously elected via a party) elected locally since 1945. Some parties are more democratic than others. Candidate selection should NOT be confused with election. If you want to select candidates...JOIN A PARTY.

For example, the Greens rank their party list by national postal ballot of ALL members. You can't get much more democratic than that. Other parties may hold conferences with delegates selected / elected from each area. Still others see the party HQ just rank people. Again, some parties are more democratic than others.

Don't support any party that doesn't select candidates democratically. Under any system. Candidate selection isn't just an issue under MMP. Far from it. 

If you don't like one minority party the MAJORITY did not vote for ending up with ALL the power, then there is NO WAY you should be voting for FPP, PV or SM. 

If you want a fair proportional outcome where your vote is as good as the next person's when it comes to electing people from the 'team' you support....then MMP is the only way to go. 

If you can't see that electing 20 MPs via your party vote is better than - maybe - electing one or two via STV....then go for STV or perhaps one if the other systems that will waste your vote entirely and you won't elect anyone at all (FPP)....or will waste it locally AND discount it and give the list seat to someone else (SM)

But I'll be voting for MMP mainly I hate one minority party the majority didn't vote for having ALL the power....and MMP is the ONLY system that lets hold entire parties to account across the whole country.

Comment by networkn, on 21-Nov-2011 12:36

I don't understand your comments around FPP giving all the power to a minority party, it wouldn't be a minority if it got the most number of votes surely?

Comment by James, on 21-Nov-2011 13:01


The problem is, it DOESN'T get the majority of VOTES, only the majority of ELECTORATES. Because electorates have inevitably different numbers of people in them simply due to the geographical issue this is a problem.

Lets' have a simple and extreme example of 3 electorates in a two party election
Electorate 1: 50000 people
Electorate 2: 10000 people
Electorate 3: 10000 people

1: 45000 people vote for Party A, Party A wins
2: 6000 people vote for Party B, Party B wins
3: 6000 people vote for Party B, Party B wins
So, Party B won 2 electorates, in FPP, they win the election and become the government. But Party B only actually got 12000 votes out of the 70000 votes cast, while Party A got 45000 but loses the election!

Careful tailoring of electorates minimises the problem but these results do continue to happen in FPP elections. It also means that the "swing" electorates effectively decided elections, it gives far disproportional power to those few voters in "swing" electorates.

Comment by James, on 21-Nov-2011 13:09

I also favour MMP for it's simplicity and it's proportionality. But it needs some changes.

My wishlist:
#1 - in elections you should have to choose to EITHER stand in an electorate OR go on the list, you don't get to have your cake and eat it too
#2 - electorate MPs should not be permitted to be ministers, they are to work for the electorate, not the Ministry of whatever
#3 - winning an electorate does not get around the threshold - no list mps come in "on the coat tails"
#4 - reduction of threshold

Comment by John2010, on 21-Nov-2011 13:16

... and there are not 120 electorates under FFP. There are only 120 (or so) Members (not electorates) under the current system due to the presence of the list MP's.

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 21-Nov-2011 13:53

networkn: People too often confuse "most" with "majority. They aren't necessarily the ssmae thing at all. 

Example: 10 people. Two of them like apples. The rest all like a different fruit each, no two the same (banana, grapes...whatever).

In this example "most" poeple like apples because people who like apples are the largest single group, even if they are 2 out of 10.

FPP gives the seat to the party with the most votes...even if they are just 2 out of 10. Exactly this happened in Albany Ward in Auckland: "Most" votes went to Wayne Taylor and Mike Goudie, but neither of them got even 10% of the votes. The other 80% of votes elected no one at all. 

Similarly....Peter Dunne won Ohariu in 2008 with 32.16% of the vote. Despite 67.84% having not voted for him. 

Extend that nationally: FPP gives each seat to the party who got "most" votes. So you end up with results where the party with a majority in the House only got 39% of the vote....but 100% of the power. The other 61% of voters have NO power. None. 

So...under FPP, just one party with a minority of votes, routinely ends up with ALL the power. If you do not like minority parties having "too much power"....then FPP is your worst nighmare because it gives ALL the power to one minority that the majority did not vote for. The same goes for SM and PV. They just arrive at the same unfair result by different paths.

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 21-Nov-2011 13:56

James: If parties can't put people on the list and run them locally, why would they bother running ANYONE locally? It would be a complete waste of a good candidate to run them locally unless they were certain of winning. Imposing such a rule would almost guarantee very few people would run locally at all. In those seats that ALWAYS vote National or labour you might find there is only one candidate. What's the point of wasting a good candidate locally if they can't win and can't be on the list, too?

Comment by James, on 21-Nov-2011 14:55


That's exactly my dream, get rid of party politics in electorates. Elect people to represent the specific needs of that electorate, not tow a party line.

And hold those MP's accountable to that electorate, by way of not allowing them to have a ministerial portfolio. A minister has far too much stuff that they should be doing for the county to be able to devote time to an electorate that put them there, that they SHOULD be working for.

That's what MMP is supposed to do, elect the PERSON you think will represent your electorate best, elect the PARTY you think will represent your country best. The person who understands your electorate's challenges best and has the best ideas to overcome them could and should come from any party.

But because party politics inevitably takes center stage for all the electorate candidates, what you get is more like "elect up to two parties".

Election forms shouldn't even state what party each electorate candidate is from, it would force people to learn about their candidates and what they what for their electorate.

People should be asking themselves, what has your electorate MP done for your electorate.

Comment by Shay, on 21-Nov-2011 15:38

Hate to break it to you but when:

Similarly....Peter Dunne won Ohariu in 2008 with 32.16% of the vote. Despite 67.84% having not voted for him.

That was under MMP. No voting system will ever cater to your version of 'The Majority'. Even under MMP an MP can be elected with only 20% of the vote while the 80% if divided up amongst other candidates.

Under MMP National could have 30% of the vote while Labour may have 40%. If National made a better coalition then they could still be the government.

The problem with MMP is that parties like Labour get a high percentage of the vote and the end up having to make f***ing stupid compromises to please mino parties just so they can get a coalition going. Think anti smacking bill, foreshore and seabed act & fart tax, all BS policies that wouldn't have come about if big parties didn't have to bend to the will of minor ones.

MMP is like if you won a new car but then I won the keys and won't give them to you unless you give me something I want. Total BS

I do agree that FFP is not the best option.

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 21-Nov-2011 15:53

Shay: Well aware Dunne's victory was via FPP within MMP. FPP is FPP whether stand-alone or under MMP. Yes. It still is rubbish. Totally agree. When they review MMP, I'll be asking any review panel to get rid of FPP locally. It is just as awful within MMP as it was when we didn't have the party vote to fix it. Either that or get rid of locals seat completely. They're full of party hacks anyway. 

MMP does come close to providing the majority I talk about. Whether one party of 10 parties, Parliament can't pass law without the votes of a majority of MPs in turn elected by a majority of voters 9at least who voted for parties that made it over the threshold or won a seat). If we drop the threshold to 3% or 2% then it would be even better.

I don't care how the government is formed provided a majority of MPs agree to be the government. If the biggest party is left out, maybe they should learn how to work better with others. Whatever. if they didn't get more than 50% of the vote they shouldn't delude themselves they are entitled to anything more than any other minority party. 

I don't shre your view that big minority - Labour or National -  should be able to override the majority who didn't vote for them. I sense the raw sense of entitlement....but in my view it is undeseved and shouldn't pandered to. 

Win enough votes to be a majority...or humble-up a little and learn to work with others to get the job done. 

[My silly comment about cry-babies removed]

Comment by lyonrouge, on 21-Nov-2011 18:09

MMP seemed OK until Winston Peters. MMP is a theory, a theory disproven once is no longer valid. He disproved it and threatens to again.  It must go. STV is looking hopeful, do we know of other countries using it?

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 21-Nov-2011 18:27

James: The world is a big, complex place with billions of people. Even our little corner of it is 4.5 million people and it would take you more years than you have just to shake hands with each of them. There is a huge raft of policy areas to cover, requiring a collectively vast array of skills, backgrounds and experience to even begin to cope with. 

That's a long-winded way of saying political parties can't and won't be done without. They aggregate resources. They provide an insitutional framework that harnesses and transcends individual energy, talent and lifespans. That means continuity. 

We aren't a village any more. To even begin to cope with the world as it is now I can't see any way to do without political parties. Maybe if voters paid attnetion and were political interested and engaged on a huge scale and made a real effort to learn about and understand commerce, the environment, transport, health, education and to do it all in an effective and useful way.....maybe then parties wouldn't necessary. 

But people aren't like that. Not even close.

lyonrouge: I see you don't like Winston Peters. Who do you vote for? If I don't liek them do you think I shuold set about promoting a voting system that would make your vote worthless? After all, if you vote for someone I don't like, you don't really deserve any you.  This seems to be how some people think. The arrogance of it is breathtaking....

I don't really want to strip you of the ability to elect who you want. Why would you want to do that to me or someone else? 

Comment by lucky015, on 21-Nov-2011 18:50

I see 2 Major problems as it is with MMP, Both of which seem to be problems that no other system can fix.

1. Despite the use of Electorates no politician is actually held accountable to their Electorate in any way, Therefore the entire use of Electorates is a waste of time. MMP Doesn't help because it leaves a back door into Parliament even if they fail in their Local Electorate. The problem is compounded by the very small amount of people who actually care who their local MP is so simply end up voting for those who are with the party they support.

As it stands an MP fears their party more than their Electorate.

2. Minor parties get too much control and use that to force the hand of Major parties into allowing their often less popular policies (Often even less popular policies within their own voters) into legislation.
As mentioned in a post above "anti smacking bill, foreshore and seabed act & fart tax" and I'm sure there are plenty more, This type of legislation is often something more personal from the MP themselves rather than a Primary Party Policy and often not even particularly supported by their own voters.

Minor parties where intended to be given a vote in all matters as expected but should never be given the right to tie the hands of a Major party as they have done recently.

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 21-Nov-2011 19:24

Lucky015: Agree largely with point 1 except for the "back door" thing. MMP has two front doors. A canddiate can become an MP through either one. There is no backdoor. On the second point "major" is distracting meme left over from the FPP days. All parties are minority parties unless they get more than 50% of the vote. This confusion of "major" versus "minor" is bogus. The bottom line is a that if any party didn't get an outright majoirty of all seats, then the REST of the Parliament is the defacto majority and they need to be worked with and persuaded of the merits of any policy. It seems unfair to me to pick on the smaller pices of that majority when the larger pieces are just as capable of supporting specitific policies - or not. These "major" parties you speak of who were actually minorities were required to persuade enough MPs to back them that they could then form a majority. That isn't "too much power" for small parties. It is, instead, the REAL majority asserting itself in opposition (or in favour) of some policy. 

Take the grossly mis-named "anti-smacking" law as an exmaple. National was happy to score political points and dump on it for several years vilifying Sue Bradford in the process - but they actually quietly agreed with it and none of them have lifted a finger to change it. That says all that needs to be said. 

National could could see the repeal of S59 as a defence was ONLY relevent AFTER the police had already decided the matter was serious enough they laid charges and that the new law was actually better law. If anything this  law is an excellent example of how smaller parties with clear values and strong principles can allow the real majority (those 90% of MPs who now won't lift a finger to repeal the law) to assert itself....even if in the cowardly way National (in particular) did it in the end.

That so many voters were clueless and remain clueless on what the law really does is something of a black mark for democracy generally...but n the end MMP actually allowed good law to be passed when it otherwise would have had to give way to widespread ignorance.  

Comment by oxnsox, on 22-Nov-2011 09:07

@lyonrouge  and @lucky015
It's easy to gereralise that MMP lets in minor parties with too much control (eg: Peters First), but I believe you're missing a couple of important things in that view.

Firstly a percentage of the population actually does support what they want, thats how they were voted seats in parliment.

Secondly, the fact that they end up in positions of power within a coalition is due to their ability to negotiate a deal with the other parties they support. If they have disproportionate power its because they've been given it by their colilition partner parties.

Soo it's a case of power corrupting, those wanting the power (to be in government) will in the case of the major party compromise too much to get it, whilst the minor party asks for (and is often given)  too much.  If there was a way to legislate around how these alliances are formed that might help, but I doubt it. We're talking Politics and politicians here. 

Like Steve I'm an MMP fan, and yes it could be tweeked a little. Personally I think it's taken the country (and it's politicians) some time to get their heads around MMP. And your example of giving NZ First undue influence is a good example of that.(National have again said they won't work with them, even before the election happens. Other parties haven't.)  
I think the current government is probably the first proper MMP one we've had (the Maori party didn't need to be there but they are), and I applaud John Key for including them.  However I'm not so happy about the manipulation of the system via the Epsom and Ohariu issues.

Maybe if we get to keep MMP we can  try and make the sort of tweeks that minimise the ways minor parties can be used to manipulate results (Epsom) and have undue influence (NZ First) if they become coalition partners. But we'll never get it right.... because there is no ideal system.  One size does not fit all.

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 22-Nov-2011 12:43

oxnsox: I'm still not buying this "undue influence" meme. The power they bring with them is the power of majority. That is the only real power these is in MMP. If one or more parties are prepared to agree on a policy agenda....and they make up a majority in the process,.....then where is the "undue influence"? 

There is no power if there is no majority. Keep that in mind.

Comment by Mycenius, on 22-Nov-2011 16:45

I can't believe anyone thinks MMP is a sensible rational system. It disenfranchises almost all voters, as it gives the smallest parties the greatest amount of power proportional to their size, it prevents strong decisive leadership and decision making, and enforces a muddling, compromised, middle of road lethargy that undermines good goverment.

At the end of the day MMP was invented by the Allied Powers post WW2 specificallyy to create a politically weak Germany so that no single party could ever make any decisive decisions or have decisive control (i.e. govern alone) to avoid a repeat of the National-Socialist experience. Why any other country would choose such a system is madness, when it's deliberately designed to handicap a government - in fact no other country bar NZ would be crazy enough to even consider it...

The simple fact is it's been a huge failure - we need strong decisive governments brave enough to make the big hard decisions, and to be able to see them through - it doesn't matter who the government is (Labour, National, etc), or if all of us think the decisions are right or wrong, but it does matter that they can make them and actually do some decisive long-term planning adn at least attempt to fix this country's long slow slide into both economic & social chaos...

Anyone who's pro-MMP is just fooling themselves - and unfortunately the best options are far too complex for the average punter to understand - so the best thing for this country is to return to FPP ASAP, and institute 4-year terms, it doesn't matter if you like who the goverment is at least they can actually 'do' something adn have enough time for new policies to take effect...

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 22-Nov-2011 17:17

Mycenius: If you read the original post or the subsequent comments most of your concerns have already been addressed. 

How you can imagine MMP disenfranchises almost all voters is frankly bizarre beyond reasoning. You appear to have fallen into the trap of somehow thinking 5 or 6 MPs can out-vote the other 114-115...which of course is complete nonsense. 

The simple reality is that power lies with the majority. You're either in it or not.  No one else has any power. 

You will, if you stop and think about it long enough, realise that a majority must be composed somehow...and there is no better way to do that than to have parties with shared values, elected by a majority of voters among them, coming together to govern.

FPP is complete garbage. I have voted under FPP at every election (FPP and locally under MMP) since 1976...and I have only EVER elected one person. THAT is disenfranchised: For most of 35 years not having elected anyone to represent me.

MMP has let me elect not just one but several MPs at EVERY election since 1996. THAT is true franchise. 

Your argument is made nonsense by my own 35 years as a voter and the proven track record of failure of FPP to provide me with ANY representation.....never mind accountability. Who did I ever "hold to account" if my vote meant absolutely nothing for 32 of 35 years? 

Sorry. You've bought into some meme that crashes and burns in the real world. Join me in the real world sometime. 

Comment by CruciasNZ, on 23-Nov-2011 11:05

I don't like MMP simply for the reasons that it allows non-elected MP's to have a seat in the government and that it has Maori electorates (but that's a whole other conversation)

However on the other side of the fence, it does provide a check and balance system. Coalitions prevent one single party from reining supreme. Imagine just how much damage National could do if it could govern alone (ie selling assets)

Single Transferable Vote seems good, coalitions are generally needed but there no list MPs. Need to really read up on it before Saturday

Author's note by Linuxluver, on 23-Nov-2011 11:39

CruciasNZ: List MPs are elected by the party vote as a group. There can be NO doubt about this as the Green Party only has list MPs and they are all eelcted by the party vote. 

I don't know why some people can't get their head around this, but apparently they can't.

When you think about it, isn't is MUCH better electing 5, 10 or 15 MPs via your party vote than not electing anyone via your local FPP vote? I live in an electorate that is a safe seat for one of the major parties. A vote for anyone else is a complete waste of time. The only vote I have that actually elects anyone at all is my MMP party vote...and it lets me elect many MPs as part of a team. 

Can anyone suggest this is so difficult for some people to understand? Surely electing several MPs from the list is much better than not electing anyone at all locally?

I can see it clearly enough.

Plus under FPP the only place your vote is worth anything at all - potentially - is just ONE person ins ONE local seat. All other seats are completely beyond your reach and utterly unaccountable to a voter.

That isn't better than MMP. It's terrible.

STV is the best of a bad bunch of alternatives. It still restricts your vote to one small part of the country and leaves  the vast majority of MPs (and their party) unaccountable to voters. 

MMP is the ONLY system that's voters hold an entire party to account across the whole country and at the same time produces a fair result for everyone. 

Nothing else comes close.  

Comment by AndrewTD, on 23-Nov-2011 12:16

I'm defintiley voting to keep MMP, and my second choice will be STV -as the least bad of all the alternatives.

I hope/expect MMP will "win" in this referendum, and then I am looking forward with interest to see how the debate on "tweaking" MMP evolves.

 Whatever tweaks they make to MMP, it can't be worse than the alternative systems.

But what I'd really like to see us debate is how we can deploy a sensible mechanism to halt the recent rampant  "urgent" law making abuses our governments have indulged in (none more so than the current govenrment in this regard).

A two house system puts an effectve break on this sort of behaviour. 
Perhaps that would work for us. Althouh we are quite a small state, so maybe something a bit smaller/simpler could be worked out.


Comment by alexx, on 25-Nov-2011 22:57

The strong decisive FPP government claim is often made.

The third Labour government (1970's) introduced a new compulsory superannuation scheme.
The following “strong decisive” National government led by Robert Muldoon, cancelled the scheme and replaced it with universal superannuation.

They also introduced the Think Big program of large industrial/energy projects and a wage and price freeze.
Then we had more “strong decisive government” with Labour in 1984 with it's policies of deregulation, corporatistion and eventually privatisation... and of course those Think Big projects were cancelled or scaled back.

Many strong decisive moves, but really, are swings from left to right with policies implemented, then cancelled, a sign of strength or weakness in the system?

These “strong decisive” policies were all being implemented by parties with less than 50% of the majority. When Muldoon returned to power in 1978 it was with 39.8% of the vote and less votes than Labour (40.4%) and returned again in 1981 with 38.8% of the vote (Labour got 39.0%).

I remember voting in the Piako electorate in the Waikato – one of the safest seats in the country, where the Luxton family held the seat for National for decades and the result was a foregone conclusion, then moving to the more volatile Hamilton West and eventually to the Eden electorate in Auckland – with one of the narrowest margins in the country. The whole thing seemed wrong to me – surely my vote should be worth the same regardless of where I lived and why should the minority dictate to the majority?

I’ll be voting for MMP – a return to FPP would be a worst possible outcome.

Linuxluver's profile

Steve Withers
New Zealand