That is a great question. Thank you very much.
Yes and no. The point there was that New Zealand was an example to illustrate that. Even a country that has adopted the most successful MMP system, that being Germany, and by successful I mean in terms of longevity, seriously considered putting it on the menu of options in the referendum for change. There were reasons why they got to that moment. It didn't start with the referendum.
I mentioned earlier that the first institutional efforts to remedy some of the pitfalls of the new system had to do with the introduction of the electoral integrity legislation, because New Zealand wasn't prepared for some of the intricacies of coalition or governance that paralyzed their parliament soon after the introduction of the new system.
The central point I want to drive home there was less about New Zealand and more about the system. If you look at some of the important publications—and I would be very happy to submit those to the clerk for future reading—they surveyed how attractive mixed member systems were just about 15 or 16 years ago. They don't seem to have that appeal anymore. Many of them are gone and have been replaced. Whether you look at new democracies, and certainly that's where they were the most prominent, or you look at Italy and Japan, the countries that experimented with mixed member systems in the early 1990s, they didn't stay, and New Zealand seemed to fall into that.