Is organising politics via political parties a flawed concept?

Dear Reader,

Welcome to the Veto Campaign.

We have pinpointed a significant vulnerability in voting systems that has yet to receive adequate recognition, let alone effective action.

Voters are not the owners of the electoral system but merely its fuel.

Practically all electoral systems, no matter the type, use the same model: “lead, follow, or get-out-of-way”. This approach is wildly undemocratic and, as a result, leads to undemocratic outcomes.

The electoral system is fundamentally flawed, which allows other ineffective elements to dominate it. This leads us to political parties.

Political parties are a bad concept created for a flawed system, which often results in poor outcomes.

Are we being harsh? You bet we are, but we think it’s justified. People generally accept that politics should be conducted through political parties; however, in many parts of the world, these parties are often more incompetent and corrupt than beneficial. We need to rethink.

The veto is a truly disruptive idea. It can remake politics into something entirely different.

If you are sceptical, read on; we may well convince you.

Is it reasonable to trust any political party to represent your best interests?

Most likely, your answer is no. How do we know? Please look at the bar chart. I assure you that it is not cherry-picked; it is a fair depiction of the level of trust people have in political parties in most so-called Western “democracies”.

We believe it’s crucial to emphasise the significance of this bar chart (see bottom of the page), given the truly staggering state of affairs. We have become so accustomed to the situation that we view it as normal, but it is an abusive relationship where people from parties we don’t trust exercise a huge amount of power over our lives, spend our money, and run up massive debts, all without our consent. If this situation involved an individual, they might face criminal convictions and imprisonment.

Is this real democracy? Is it the best we can do?

The solution is to implement a VETO option that triggers a rerun if chosen by the majority. This means whoever is elected will require the consent of the majority to take a seat in an FPTP system.

PR also requires a veto to address this issue because it allocates 100% of seats without considering whether there are potential voters who feel unrepresented, which could lead to MPs who do not represent anyone in parliament!

The principle that applies is that a percentage veto results in the same percentage of empty seats. For example, if there is a 30% veto, then 30% of the seats will remain empty. This arrangement retains proportionality but allows more voters to become represented in future elections and keeps pressure on elected MPs to do a competent job.

If we ever transition to a democratic electoral system, we anticipate that political parties in their current form will be viewed as an antiquated remnant of an oppressive system that has consistently resulted in poor outcomes for voters, and we will marvel at the notion that this system was in place for so long.

Let’s explore why political parties in their current conception are a flawed idea. In no particular order:

Party whip: Political parties offer a “set menu” of policies, candidates, and programmes. Even if the majority oppose many of the policies proposed by political parties, citizens have little influence over them. In addition, the party whip is in existence to ensure discipline. He is the official in charge of ensuring that elected members of the party vote according to the party platform rather than their personal beliefs or constituents. The party can pull the whip, effectively expelling a member who fails to maintain discipline. Political parties actively prevent our supposed representatives from representing us or using their judgement.

The Iron Law of Oligarchy refers to the tendency of the party leadership to reward loyalty. Competence will be secondary to loyalty, and integrity may even hinder an individual’s advancement within the party’s organisation. One of the ways that central party leadership maintains control is to manipulate candidate selection, deploying chicken-runners and parachute candidates, especially in “safe seats”. Can we trust these selected candidates to prioritise the interests of their constituencies over those of their parties?

Perverse Incentives: each political party faces pressure to mislead the public over the effectiveness, or lack thereof, of their achievements and policies. For example, Sunak’s government in November 2023 claimed its policies to halve the rate of inflation were “working” when, in fact, the drop being celebrated was the result of a drop in energy rates that had little to do with the actions of the government. There’s no point going into the current government’s never-ending nonsense, as we will be here forever.

When elections come around, political parties often use scare tactics against their opponents and make promises that they do not keep when getting into power. We have a system where the ruling party often pretends things are better than they are, while the opposition claims they are worse. Such an arrangement is just another flawed aspect of a broken system.

So, what can we do about it? At the VETO campaign, we focus on solutions rather than commentary.

If you have the VETO, you are the solution.

You live with the consequences of your decisions and have a stake in the long-term success of your country. If voters are in charge, what they want is effective governance.

If you feel an election may not represent your interests, consider vetoing it until it does. We believe it’s our right and duty to reject poor representation, and failing to do so harms ourselves, our families, our community, and our nation.

How does the change impact the party system?

When voters take charge of the country, political party establishments become less important. The voters’ demands for competent policies and resources encourage MPs to disregard party directives and prioritise their voters’ best interests. It will encourage them to reach across party lines to form alliances of mutual interests that can more effectively lobby for their constituents. Such an arrangement will foster a natural grassroots restructuring of the political process.

What will happen is hard to say; perhaps organisations will emerge based on regional lines. This approach makes more sense than dividing by political parties along ideological lines.

The character of politics and politicians will change for the better:

It will be more difficult to use scare tactics and misleading claims, as this sort of negative campaigning can only lead to more people choosing to VETO the election.

The pressure to accurately assess metrics will replace the pressure to mislead, ensuring the most effective allocation of resources.

Parliament will transform from a strange and curated spectacle of the opposition battling the party in power into a place of intense horse trading and coordination focused on finding ways to improve the lives of the electorate.

Given that MPs must secure majority consent for election, they will strive to unite voters instead of dividing them, as our current system does.

The system we have now is biased against representing voter interests. It can work if people in charge are reasonably competent, act in good faith, and are doing their best, but once they depart from this standard, there is almost nothing voters can do about it.

Let’s work together to improve this system.

Note: This is an updated version of the blog post originally published in May 2025.

SIGN THE PETITION!