If you have found your way here, you must be, like me, immensely frustrated with the state of our governance. This frustration is not just limited to the British Isles.
The bar chart shows distrust in those we elect is at crisis levels throughout most of the Western world, and nothing changes over time. This chart is not cherry-picked; it’s representative of the so-called western “democracies.”
When voters find no candidate who represents their interests—or when, as under our FPTP system, their preferred choice can’t win—they face a hopeless choice: abstain or cast a meaningless vote.
This is not a democratic electoral system; it’s a grotesque, inferior imitation.
Here’s where the veto option comes in. It enables each voter to reject an election if they believe it does not guarantee them a representative in whom they have confidence. If a majority of voters choose to veto, the system reruns the election within a reasonable timeframe. Candidates then adjust their platforms based on voter feedback to earn majority consent.
Democracy isn’t the best form of governance because the voters are infallible, but because we bear the consequences of our decisions, so we have the greatest incentive to pursue the best outcomes for ourselves. This is something we generally have in common with each other. Therefore, by empowering voters and giving them enough time, we will inevitably maximise the common good because this reform creates a system that aligns governance with the best interests of the majority.
The VETO option begins to influence governance as soon as the VETO vote exceeds the margin of victory. The winner is now incentivised to govern in a way that will draw those voters into his voting base or risk a loss in the next election.
For the sake of brevity, I have left many gaps. Our white paper fills those gaps and discusses different aspects of the reform on this website. Please join us in the campaign for real democracy. Let’s maximise the common good!