You seem to have mistaken my comment about compromise as an attack on your personal integrity, or that of the party. It was neither.
I'm not against your idea, and I'm not attacking it. I think it's well worth considering, among a raft of possible options for making overturning the dogma of parliamentary supremacy that gets passed off as "democracy" (governance by consent of the governed). I briefly described a few of the models I like in the Direct Democracy thread, as well as in this one. All I'm saying is I think that like me, you're probably going to have to wait until the public are invited to make comments on the report of the Constitutional Review in 2013, with its much broader and deeper scope, to get a proper hearing for your proposal.
if we managed to leapfrog over the Alliance, Libertarianz, Democrats, ALCP, United Future (each <1%), ACT, Mana, Mäori (each <2%), and the Conservatives (<3%),
I see this as quite achievable. Most of these are examples of what a friend of mine calls a "spent force". In some cases they had much higher support, and have dwindled (Alliance, UF, ACT, Maori), in other cases they have reached a plateau in their early elections and stay there with a diminishing rates of returns on the energy they invest each election (Libz, Dems, ALCP).
Of your list, the only emerging parties are Mana and the Cons. They are rising mainly because they are bleeding support from one or more of the spent forces. I know from personal observation that a lor of former Alliance and Maori support is going to Mana, and I'm guessing that the '3 strikes' neoconservatives who supported ACT, and the fundamentalist nutters who used to support Future NZ, UF, Destiny, and the Kiwi Party are the ones flocking to the Cons banner
The PP could potentially draw some votes from all the parties you list (except maybe UF and Cons), if it were to:
* maintain a strong focus on personal freedom and privacy
* create a coherent economic policy based on ideas of co-production and peer-to-peer economics,
* adopt a drug law reform policy which is at least as progressive at that of the Greens,
* agree on an ethnic-relations policy with is neither neo-colonial (and anti-Māori) nor neo-aristocratic (and anti-Pākeha), perhaps based on a confederation of autonomous regionshttp://www.indymedia.org.nz/article/831 ... enua-and-n
The main source of potential votes for the PP though, is the 30% or so of registered voters who could not bring themselves to support any of the parties on the ballot, because they didn't feel fully represented by the ones who had a chance of getting in, and couldn't be bothered leaving the house to vote for a party which they didn't believe could get over 5%. Although I think a registered PP would gain votes from this pool anyway, I think it would gain more the lower the threshold is dropped from 5%.
This is why I think it's worth making an argument on the Proposals Paper in favour of dropping the threshold more. If nothing else, it might balance out those who will give up on increasing it, and shift their support to retaining 5% in their second round of submissions.
however overall only around 30% (from my estimation reading the graph) wanted to lower the threshold below 4%.
You may be right. My point is that the Commissioners have already discounted the arguments for raising the threshold, and for keeping it at 5%, as did the original Royal Commission who designed our MMP system. So of those who agree with the Commissioners that the threshold should be less than 5%, a majority support 5% or less.
BTW I'd be interested to see the results of a formal poll where people are able to rank their preference among percentages from 1%-15%, then an STV style algorithm is used to progressively eliminate the least-supported candidates and move each persons vote to the next un-elimimated number down their preference list, until a consensus is reached. In fact, this may well be a good way to run the referendum I ask for in my representation.