At the same time, it ensured we have a representative Parliament in which a party that could not command even a one-vote majority was not allowed (as it would have done under first past the post) to walk off with all the spoils and under no obligation to take account of anyone else.
Small parties that could not clear the threshold of at least one elected MP or at least 5 per cent of the total vote fell by the wayside and were therefore unable to affect the final result.
But parties with a significant level of support, when none of them had an actual majority, were able to talk to each other about which combination of them stood the best chance, on the basis of common policies and most accurately reflecting the will of the people, of forming an effective and stable Government.
Yes, the process of discovering the identity of that optimal combination took some time, as it needed to, if the detailed and hard work needed to arrive at the outcome with the best chance of success was to be thoroughly carried through.
By comparison with how long other countries habitually take over such a process, ours was completed in the blink of an eye.
Perhaps the most pleasing aspect of the eventual outcome, at least from the viewpoint of a former professional politician (and, I think, reasonably dispassionate observer), is that the outcome accords with the political logic. This was, in other words, no maverick toss of the coin.
It was always in my view most likely that New Zealand First would opt to work with Labour.
They share many of the same policy perspectives and, most importantly, both declared themselves to be intent on securing change.
The outcome they have produced is in tune with the majority mood - the sense that we can do better.
Winston Peters was surely right to warn that, unless we make some changes, tougher times lie ahead.
Much of our claimed economic success rests on consumption, asset inflation and borrowing - even our modest GDP growth looks less impressive on a per capita basis once new arrivals are stripped out of the statistics.
Perhaps the most significant statement of the whole campaign was the reason Peters gave for his decision.
Capitalism (for which read "neo-liberalism"), he asserted, has failed many of our people; the fruits of what passes for our success have passed them by.
He seems to have focused quite specifically on opting for the best chance of overcoming our growing, divisive, and potentially dangerous inequality.
We should of course welcome this recognition by our leading politicians that so many of our fellow-citizens have concluded that "the system" does not work for them and serves only the interests of an elite.
We are all entitled to congratulate ourselves on the fact that this potentially ticking time-bomb has produced in New Zealand, not - as in other countries - a Donald Trump or some other extremist, but a broadly based and secure Government that is committed to considered policies that will address the problem.
There have been those who have pulled faces and rolled their eyes and declared that the outcome is "a mess".
One can understand their displeasure - even anger - that the outcome is not the one they wanted.
But most of us, even those who may have voted for a different outcome, should take comfort from the fact that the good sense of the New Zealand voter and the strength of our political institutions have again prevailed.
We remain a country that deserves to head international ratings for the effectiveness of our democracy. You win some, you lose some. Let us all now work together so that we can reap the rewards.
