Ironically, I have an M.A. in Journalism. I'm a software engineer now, but, as I said, I've written a book on NZ politics. Self-published, sure, but gosh darn it, I'm proud of it.
When a major newspaper takes reddit comments as a newsworthy story, the news has indeed broken.
I have to warn you, it was the folly of a young-and-stupid idiot. I couldn't find anyone interested in publishing it, so I self-published on Amazon. Couldn't get an editor, so it's got typos galore. And I'm pretty sure that it's about 10 pages of mildly interesting travelogue before it hits 90 pages of dry-ass game theory. Truth be told, I wrote it before I was diagnosed with Aspergers.
Caveat emptor: https://www.amazon.com/Importing-Democracy-Brian-Boyko-ebook/dp/B00G8TC4HY
"Importing Democracy: A quest to find the American Dream (in New Zealand)", you can order it here: https://www.amazon.com/Importing-Democracy-Brian-Boyko-ebook/dp/B00G8TC4HY
Tagline is: "Literally traveling to the ends of the earth to find the American Dream."
I can't vouch for the quality. I really needed a good editor, but since I couldn't find a publisher (other than self-publishing) I couldn't really afford one at the time. Maybe I can go back to it someday but I really don't think anyone would be interested. I'm told the latter half was kind of boring and full of statistics and game theory -- I wrote this book before I was diganosed with Aspergers so I didn't realize that game theory was one of my special interests.
Going to go out on a limb and say it's this one:
https://www.amazon.com/Importing-Democracy-Brian-Boyko-ebook/dp/B00G8TC4HY
I'm sure /u/BrianBoyko can confirm better than I though.
As an American, I will input my opinion on this issue regarding domestic New Zealand politics whether or not you actually want to hear what I have to say.
Ahem.
The reason that casinos and pokies are legal is because the New Zealand parliament passed legislation which allowed for their use, provided that they abide by certain restrictions on time, place, and manner.
If you wish to make gambling illegal in New Zealand, you would need to get enough votes among members of Parliament to pass a law reversing this decision.
Unlike my own country, New Zealand MPs are not very "insulated" from public opinion. The government may occasionally do something most NZers won't like, but that presents a genuine risk that the balance of power would shift to the party in opposition. The MMP system keeps major parties responsive to the needs of their base by allowing for minor party votes to be counted and represented, creating a threat that voters could defect and vote for a minor party (ACT for National; Greens for Labour, for example). Since the minor party would likely end up in coalition anyway, the general direction of Parliament would likely stay the same (so the voter isn't "helping their enemies win") but it would reduce the major party's MP count by one, and the fewer MPs you have the more concessions you must make when forming your coalition or Confidence & Supply agreements.
So what you would find effective would be to attend local party meetings of your preferred party, ask them to add this to the platform, and if they reject it - find another party or form your own, and if they go for it, do what you can to support it.
You have to understand, I'm a little irked by your suggestion - "Why don't we ban casinos/pokies." I wrote a book on New Zealand politics in an effort to answer why New Zealand is the least corrupt country in the world. You HAVE a voice. You HAVE a say. The system is set up so that if you have an opinion, it matters. It frustrates me that you have every opportunity to speak your mind and be heard that an American will likely never have in my lifetime.
That said: I think slot machines/pokies are pointless and really are just skinner boxes for adults; but I don't have a problem with someone having fun by gambling reasonably. I would rather pass legislation that requires pokies to put up, as a disclaimer, their expected value return on investment - something like: "This machine will return, on average, $0.92 for every $1.00 it takes." Before banning the pokies for everyone, take a step to make sure that people have all the information they need to make good decisions.
There is one other thing. I play poker. I'm profitable at playing poker, because poker (unlike blackjack) doesn't have house-edges - that is, if there was no fee or "rake" for playing poker -- and that is the case with most "home games" - every dollar put in is taken out at the end of the night. But home games are practically limited in how high they can go. $1/2 no Limit Holdem games can have $3000 in cash in one place. The Casino provides a safe place to play poker and the security of it, but charges a fee in the form of the rake. It provides a service.
My point is this - I disagree with you about casinos/pokies - but you live in a wonderful country where if you want to try and change things, you CAN make the attempt. Here, in America, people have no voice; because of our privately-funded campaigns, the casino owners essentially can determine policy because they control where the campaign funding checks go. It results in absurd situations like Winstar World Casino owners lobbying FOR legal gambling in Oklahoma, and AGAINST legal gambling in Texas, because they want the Dallas, Texas residents to drive 90 minutes to gamble in Thakerville, Oklahoma (literally just across the Texas/Oklahoma border) instead of a competitor setting up shop in Texas.
I've actually written a book on this: "Importing Democracy"
And I can say without a doubt, No, it would not.
Now, I'm not fan of first past the post. But honestly, the "Alternative Vote" system you describe is already known primarily in the U.S. as "instant runoff voting." It is used in a few places in the U.S. already; but it is functionally identical to "runoff voting."
In short, the system that you are describing is actually in use in most of America; the advocates for "instant runoff voting" are mostly interested in saving money by not having to pay for a runoff election.
But you're close.
Fixing campaign finance has to come first; and so I focus my efforts there, but you are right that having viable alternatives to the two major parties discourages hyperpartisanship through game theory - in short, in a two-party system, suppressing your opponent's votes is equal to a gain for your own. In a multiparty system, suppressing your opponent's votes is not effective - the voters will just move to a similar party and form a coalition.
But you cannot have a viable multiparty system without either a proportional or transferable system. Proportional representation is just like what it sounds like - people vote for a party, rather than a candidate, and the percentage of seats in the legislature are equal to the percentage of votes each party got.
The other way to do so is through transferable voting. This would use the exact same ballot as the "alternative vote" that you mentioned, but it would elect candidates in larger "superdistricts" and fill multiple seats.
In short, in transferable voting, a candidate does not have to get 50% of the vote to be seated. They only need enough votes to be "clearly elected" - that's 1/(number of seats +1) + 1. So if there were 4 representatives, you would only need 20%+1 of the votes to be seated.
The trick in transferable voting is that not only do the unsuccessful candidates' votes get transferred (as you describe) but also that the successful candidates overage gets transfered as well.
So, let's say you have 3 seats up for grabs, and 800 people voted. You need 201 votes to be elected.
Candidate A recieves 300 votes. 200 of them chose Candidate B as their second choice, while the other 100 chose Candidate C.
Candidate A would immediately be seated. Candidate B would then get 2/3rds of the 99 "overage" votes, or 66 votes. Candidate C would get the remaining third, or 33 votes. If these votes would put either Candidate B or C over the 200 vote threshhold, they would be seated as well.
This system is used in Scottish elections, Irish elections, the U.K. EU Parliament elections, and the Australian Senate.
What's interesting about the Australian Senate is that they have a bicameral system, and they only use Transferable Voting in the Senate. The house uses Instant Runoff Voting (or the AV system you describe.) The Australian House is effectively a 2-party system. The Senate is a multiparty system, with more independents and more minor parties.
Tellingly, the Senate also has better representation of minorities and women - a side-effect of multi-party systems. I go into why that is in my book, but suffice to say that that's really just kind of icing on the cake.