Veto in democracy?

[WillowIX]

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]

[Faceman]

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 ]

[WillowIX]

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. LLAO!

[BaRoN NiGhT]

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.

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

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

[Faceman]

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.

[BaRoN NiGhT]

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.

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

[Faceman]

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.

[HolyWarrior]

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

[Attalus]

Originally posted by HolyWarrior: 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.

[Mouse]

Originally posted by WillowIX: 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]

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