OK this just popped into my mind for no particular reason. I can't seem to figure out how veto can be a part of a democratic system? I mean if the majority votes yes and a single person's vote undermines this; how is that democracy? Is there anyone whocan explain this to me? [img]smile.gif[/img]

veto is not part of the basic idea of democracy
it's an instrument to correct one of its flaws

democracy was invented in ancient greece and also used in ancient Rome
the privilege "veto" which actually means "I forbid" was given to the people's tribunes to be able to forbid a decision made by a majority of nobles which would negatively affect the people.

Veto is needed especially to correct the flaws of representative democracies which are the only ones that work in countries as populated as today.
the problem is that the majority in council does not always reflect the majority in people. So in the UN security council for example a majority of small states could vote for something which would negatively affect say Russia. Now they can use their veto to prevent harm to their country which is privileged because of its size (actually because of its political importance in the cold war but...)

wrongly used veto can be a powerful instrument of negating everything, its intention however is to be an instrument of control.

the normal course of action (as done in many countries) would be to give the privilege of veto to someone who has no real executive power or is not intended to use it (like queen or king in most constitutional monarchies). The power to govern therefore sits with the government (duh!) but if there's something quite inappropriate the control instance can say "veto" and hinder them from making a big mistake.

[ 06-29-2003, 01:36 PM: Message edited by: Faceman ]

OK I understand what you mean Faceman. But still it doesn't really explain the US president's right to veto a decision. IIRC that one is a special case. Not sure about that either though. But let's take the EU as an example. Several of the "larger" countries have veto rights. So if all countries agree to a change, the one that doesn't benefit from the change can veto it and the majority suffers. It doesn't make any sense to me... And that goes for governments as well. :D LLAO!

<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2" COLOR="#00ff00">yes, i agree with u.but some big countries just dont want to be disadvantaged by sometime of a democracy thing.but who can make a really pure democracy application in real life? as u know humnas has so many things that they want.this world is enough for humans needs, but not enough for humans greedyness.to the perfection, there should be no veto in the world.</FONT>

--------------------

[ 06-29-2003, 01:43 PM: Message edited by: BaRoN NiGhT ]

well...
in a democracy you always look for the perfect solution for everybody = an unanimous decision
because this is not always feasable we turned to majority decisions (mostly 50%+ , 66%+ in more important cases)
for extremely important decisions however there's always the veto to prevent something from which everybody gains but one suffers.
Think about it: If everybody gains on one country's/race's/social group's expense we are one step closer to a splitted society. Vetos are there to prevent that and people who are equipped with that privilege usually (should) know to use it carefully and only in really important cases not for the run of the mill "tax cut for you but not for you" case.

<FONT FACE="Arial" SIZE="2" COLOR="#00ff00">well, if a veto is a must, i recommend that there should be a limited border for the one whose using it.not all can be veto-ed.</FONT>

--------------------

I think this is how it's done in some countries. The problem is that if something is not possible on a lower level people will take it to a higher and vice versa. So we'd end up making hundreds of communal laws instead of one federal law just to avoid the veto.
A (not veto connected example)
Here in Austria we had a government of the socialist and the Christian party (which is a commendable achievement of consensus) for decades. They has more then two thirds of the parliament and therefore the possibility to alter the Austrian constitution. So they put every law they definitely did not want to be abolished in the constitution. We ended up having constitutional law on how broad a sidewalk is allowed to be or on what is the maximum allowed lenghth of a truck.

Willow, in a pure democracy, there would be no people.
The United States is a republic, not a democracy.

And a Constitutional Republic at that. Thank the Lord.

I think I've got it. If a group democratically votes to accept a system of governance that includes veto powers, them those veto powers are part of that democratic system.

QED :D

Well this doesn't hold true for most parts. ;) The thing that spurred my mind on this wsa France's decision to veto some agricultural change, I think it was subsidies. OK, so the French farmers lose money, nut so do all farmers. This would then encourage modern farming etc. etc., ergo it is a gain.

Holywarrior, in a pure democracy everyone would be just people. ;) AFAIK the difference between republic and democracy is that a republic is ruled by law. And if the law includes veto power so be it. BUT a republic is still a representative government. ;) And all democracies in the west are in fact republics since they all are representative governments, not ruled by the mob. Rome would then be the last tru democracy. ;)

OK Mousy-boy, you have a point there. :D Did you get to vote on vetos for certain countries in regards to the EU?

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries? ;)

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img]

Hi <font color=deeppink>Willow!</font> [img]graemlins/happywave.gif[/img]

The reason veto power was given to the Executive was to prevent tyrrany of the masses. Just because a majority of the People want something does not mean it is good for them or all of them. The Legislature, tasked with shaping the country was not entirely trusted to be always benign. Nor was the Executive for that matter. That is where the Judiciary is intended to be a brake on the other two. Should a law get passed that violates the basic rights of the People, *cough*PatriotAct*cough* then the People have the right and duty to try it's Constitutionality in the Courts. If the Judiciary finds misdeeds, it sends the offending law back to the Legislature for re-evaluation.

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries? ;)

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]We the People are not ..... the neveau nobility that has been upsurping authority from the People is. Slight difference.

Why are the USA so eager to export democracy to other contries? ;)

Should they export republic instead [img]tongue.gif[/img] </font>[/QUOTE]That's because the U.S.A. is a Deomcraticly elected "Constitutional Representative Republic" Our forefathers Democraticly decided to be a "CRR" ;) Down through the years we the people have decided that we would keep it that way.

Our nation has a Constitution that spells out some of our rights as citizens, Rights that can not be taken away by a simple majority vote of the people.

Nope, Rome was a republic. "Res Publica" is Latin for "public matter" and the USA were formed after the example of Rome.
Rome had a senate and representatives for the plebs.
The last (and first) true democracy was Athens where every citizen got to vote (however that excluded women, outsiders, slaves, ...)

Ahhh! Excellent Night Stalker! Thanks a bunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] So veto is a part of democracy although its powers clearly obstructs democracy's purpose?

Sure they did but it wasn't the emperor or the senate that held the power. ;) The mob and especially the military were the two most powerful factors in Rome. ;)

Well, I wasn't talking about Democracy, for that is NOT what the American gubmint is. But, yes, veto is there to impede a bill being signed into law. Laws, once they are on the books are very hard to change or delete. They take on inertia of their own. The will of the Republic is not always a good thing. That is why veto is written into the American Constitution. But the veto power of the President in not absolute. A bill, after being vetoed is sent back to Congress for modification. Should Congress still want to pass the bill unmodified, they can .... provided they achieve a 2/3 majority in both the House and Senate. See, a bill can be signed into law with only a simple majority - 50% + 1. They need more cohession to pass a vetoed bill. And like a said, after being signed into law, it is possible for the Supreme Court to strike it down on Constitutional grounds.

Now, why would this be important. Considder slavery, which was once, regretably, part of America. The whole notion should have been struck down. But, barring that the President should have vetoed it .... or been declared unConstitutional by the Court. Of course they did some major denial/justification to claim that slaves were not human to get around that "All men are created equal." thing. This was more to get the South to ratify the new gubmint for they would not abandon their ways and the flegling nation could not hope to stand against Europe if they were divided. Anyway this is just one example were the Will of the People is not a GoodThing^TM.

Sure they did but it wasn't the emperor or the senate that held the power. ;) The mob and especially the military were the two most powerful factors in Rome. ;) </font>[/QUOTE]The mob always has the power but it's the government/senate/king/... who channels it.
Technically speaking the thing that has power in a car is the fuel but the driver uses the engine to channel that power and drive.
Like an emperor/king/senate/... uses the governmental structure to rule his people.
The ancient Roman Republic was run by families of nobles who were elected for consul and after retirement joined the senate. After Gaius Julius Caesar's dictatorship and some quarrels the time of the emperors (starting with Oktavian) started. The senate now was nothing more but a show and all the power was with the emperor.

WILLOW, NS hits the nail on the head here. Via veto, the executive does not trump the legislature, rather he demands that a 2/3 majority of the legislature approve the bill. If I were President (God help us), I would veto EVERY bill as a matter of course -- something 2/3 of the legislature can't agree on can't be in the best interests of the people.

I am also for the line-item veto, which goes a long way to get rid of pork and does not really offend the constitution (as some would claim).

Quote:

Now, why would this be important. Considder slavery, which was once, regretably, part of America. The whole notion should have been struck down. But, barring that the President should have vetoed it .... or been declared unConstitutional by the Court. Of course they did some major denial/justification to claim that slaves were not human to get around that "All men are created equal." thing. This was more to get the South to ratify the new gubmint for they would not abandon their ways and the flegling nation could not hope to stand against Europe if they were divided. Anyway this is just one example were the Will of the People is not a GoodThing<sup>TM</sup>.

Slavery was done away with in the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, the so-called Civil War Amendments. Amending the Constitution is yet another example of where a 2/3 majority is required. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, but the key here is that the power was used by one <u>group representing the majority (the people)</u> against the decisions made by the minority (the nobility).

The case where the US president carries an executive power of veto over the decisions of the majority is therefore a *corruption* of this basic idea of democracy - since it gives precedence of power to the minority over the majority.

It was the installation of the executive powers of veto that allowed Hitler to abort the assemblies attempts to remove him and curb his power in the 1930's and thus provided him with the means to become a dictator.
It was the power of veto that allowed Mugabe to wrestle control away from Parliament and provide himself with the means to install his own dictatorship.

The best 'veto' system occurs where two elected bodies sit - both with differing powers and electoral boundaries to offset eachother. No single person or small group of officials should bear such a power by themselves.

In the US system, Senate and Congress are enough of a counterbalance without any need for the US president to bear such dangerous powers.


It's a bit more complicated than that. The EU (and its parliament) was created by treaty - but it is not a true parliament in the sense that it could only be considered as a 'lower house' with limited powers.

The EU treaty does *not* for example give the EU parliament powers to raise taxes or set tax rates without seeking further authorisation from all EU states.
Effectively then, *all* members have 'veto' rights, since their refusal to grant further powers to the EU parliament and its executive could derail any proposed policy - and yes, that even includes small countries like portugal (which a few years ago derailed a proposal by the UK to lower taxes to the UK rates...)

Other issues, for example agricultural subsidies *do not* fall under the remit of the European parliament but are set by treaty between the member states. Consequently a refusal by one government to change the terms of a previously agreed treaty does not consitute a 'veto' in the parliamentary sense of the usage of that word..

[ 06-30-2003, 11:59 AM: Message edited by: Skunk ]

I have already read the term "line-item veto" a couple of times in US publications, but I don't know what it stands for. Would you, please, be so kind to explain the concept to me? [img]smile.gif[/img]

[ 06-30-2003, 03:00 PM: Message edited by: Ramon de Ramon y Ramon ]

[quote]Originally posted by Ramon de Ramon y Ramon:

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: [qb]I have already read the term "line-item veto" a couple of times in US publications, but I don't know what it stands for. Would you, please, be so kind to explain the concept to me? [img]smile.gif[/img]

It is the power to veto a bill in part, instead of the whole.

example:

1. Proposed Bill
2. legal mumbo-jumbo
   <LI><s>vetoed part of bill</s>
   <LI>more legal mumbo-jumbo

Thanks, NS! [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, I can definitely see how that would very significantly increase the president's actual veto power. After all, it is a common practice to package controversial proposals with very popular ones into one bill and force the institution holding the power to block it to have to decide between letting the whole legislation pass or taking the criticism for blocking the popular part.

Hmm so if the US president uses hi veto to turn down a proposed bill, the bill needs a 2/3 majority instead of the usual 51 %? Did I get that right? Is this also the case in the EU? I'm not sure you know that Timber, but I noticed that Ramon³ had entered the thread. [img]smile.gif[/img]

Yes, Willow, you got it right. The legislature has the ultimate law-making power (mmm.... mostly, let's forget executive orders for the moment). With the consent of the executive, a simple majority is fine. Without the consent of the executive (i.e. veto), you need a super majority.

Side note: The pocket veto: Congress gets a bill to the president, and there is a certain amount of time he has to sign it or veto it. If there is less time until the end of the Congressional session that the time provided for signing, the President may simply do nothing, and let the legislative session end without the bill being passed one way or another. This effectively kills it until next session, and is known as the pocket veto.

Unfortunately, I can't help you with the EU. Ramonster?

[img]graemlins/thumbsup.gif[/img] Timber. Thanks a bunch. [img]smile.gif[/img] I now understand how a veto can be a part of a democratic process. [img]smile.gif[/img]

OK Ramon, or any other European for that matter, how about the veto in the EU?

For the question above now an example of how lunatics use their right to veto.
Our Austrian far-right Freedom Party for a long time threatened to veto the EU expansion to the east if our neighbour countries did not close down their nuclear power plants.
Austria does not produce nuclear power and Austrians are (rightfully) afraid of fallouts near the border.
However this would be a classic abuse of veto:
"If you don't do as we like we will punish you."
It would be right if the EU decided to give financial aid to these power plants. Then it would be logical of a country which is afraid of them to veto so they do not get built. But it is illogical to veto their invitation to the EU when this may be the only chance to close down the already active plants when nuclear power is once abolished EU-wide.