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.”
Before we go further, I want you to ask yourself. If the vast majority don’t have confidence in political parties and we can’t change the situation, at least sometimes, can we really call ourselves democracies?
We, at the VETO Campaign, believe we’ve identified the root of this widespread distrust. The common factor is a glaring flaw in our electoral systems that prevents the voter from being sovereign within it.
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 flaw creates serious problems. It allows room for a disconnect between elected officials and their voters, allowing special interest groups to gain undue influence. The “lead, follow, or get-out-of-the-way” principle fuels extremism and turns our system into something more aptly termed an “electoral oligarchy”.
This is not a democratic electoral system; it’s a grotesque, inferior imitation.
Voters merely serve as fuel for an electoral system that can produce results that are against their best interests. The system actively functions in a manner that can sideline and silence even the majority of voters. We believe that the widespread lack of trust indicates the poor design of the electoral system.
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.
Why Does The Veto Maximise The Common Good?
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.
The assumption on which this reform rests is that self-governance works. If it doesn’t, then God help us, as no one else can.
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!
221 seats in the 2024 election were won with margins of less than 10%. Can you imagine the impact of the veto in that election? Do you think we would have the government we have now? Would we have ended up with something like the last Conservative government?
The Petition. PLEASE SIGN!
Adding a VETO option to ballots
A democratic electoral system requires consent, and the veto provides it.
NOTE: Petition approval is still pending, so there is nothing to sign yet. We will update once it’s up and running.