A week can be a very long time in politics, especially when you're waiting to find out who it is that will govern us for the next term, and for those of us who grew up under FPP it may seem an unnecessary or even ridiculous wait.
But as unsettling as temporarily not having a government may be, this is not a "fault" of MMP; the system is, in fact, working perfectly.
Because MMP is all about coalitions. About negotiation, and compromise, and incorporating other party's points of view into your own.
About building a government that reflects more than one outlook. Which naturally takes some time to achieve.
And although all the talk may be about Winston Peters as king- or queen-maker - certainly the nation waits with baited breath to see what he will do - there are several options possible, two of which don't include NZ First at all.
Yes, it's a long shot to think either Labour or the Greens would partner with National, but nevertheless those are viable majority combinations. As much so as National/NZF, or Labour/Green/NZF, or Winston deciding to sit on the cross-benches, giving National confidence and supply but voting everything else strictly on merit.
Five viable options is exactly the sort of outcome MMP envisages. So trying to say it isn't working is, frankly, absurd.
As absurd as the cry from a number of quarters that National has some sort of "moral authority" to become government.
No, it does not. Just because it has (provisionally) the most votes and the most seats does not mean it must be part of a ruling coalition.
Again, people saying this don't understand MMP. Baldly, the only group with any "moral authority" to govern is the group that puts together a majority of seats.
It matters not a whit whether that includes the largest party, or a whole host of minor ones; post-election it's all about the art of the deal, and you can either make one that sees you on the Treasury benches, or you can't. And if you can't, then you had no right to any presumed "authority", did you?
So we wait as long as it takes for the deal-makers to forge a working alliance, and whoever that is we must recognise that theirs was the better option - because it's the one that works.
Having said all that, regular readers will know I am not a big fan of MMP; it may give seats and a voice to smaller groups who might otherwise (under FPP) not have one, but it still tends to favour parties over individuals too heavily - and larger parties, at that.
And as good as it was to see more electorates working the system this time in distinguishing party from candidate votes, I'd rather a more direct proportional system that allowed for wider representation - including more opportunity for strong individuals to become MPs.
Because we are a multi-faceted society, and the more we give voice to all our facets, the more engaged people will become with politics - and the healthier government would be for having and accommodating them.
I'll be slightly naughty and note I've been caught up in all this election fervour myself, to the point of throwing my hat in for Hastings council.
But I won't be using this column for self-promotion, and in consequence also won't be writing about the councillor election, sorry - although I may have a say on the vote for mayor (editor willing).
As for Parliament, please remember: whichever coalition has the numbers has full rights to be in power, because majority rules. That's the deal.