What if each member of parliament could veto all the others, but only once in their lifetime?

[Miranda Brawner]

The title says it all. Suppose a country has a law saying that all members of a legislature have the power to veto any law proposed by that legislature. This would mean that all decisions have to be unanimous, except for the fact that each person can only veto one bill in their lifetime. So, if anyone uses their veto, then the bill is defeated even if 99% of the senators or members of parliament support it. If no one uses their veto, then you only need a majority to pass the bill.

What would happen? What kind of strategies would people use to game the system?

 

[Lalli]

I can't see any country adopting that. Somehow similar was in Poland-Lithunaia and it didn't work very well. And I can't see that working even if every member of parliament can veto a law only once on their lifetime.

 

[DougM]

Not workable as the political parties will just keep replacing members who have used their veto unless this is a House if Loards , lifetime kind of thing.

 

[Peg Leg Pom]

The system would soon collapse as nothing would ever get done. Someone will always vote against a bill and with each elections there would be fresh members so you never get to a situation where all the potential vetos have been cast.

You're also going to get the situation where opposition parties routinely veto the government's annual budget.

 

[Aghasverov]

The title says it all. Suppose a country has a law saying that all members of a legislature have the power to veto any law proposed by that legislature. This would mean that all decisions have to be unanimous, except for the fact that each person can only veto one bill in their lifetime. So, if anyone uses their veto, then the bill is defeated even if 99% of the senators or members of parliament support it. If no one uses their veto, then you only need a majority to pass the bill.

What would happen? What kind of strategies would people use to game the system?

Form informal "veto clubs" within the legislature, each with an agenda of specific measures of the other party or parties to veto, once they come up for a vote... once a member of "the club" issues his/her veto, the "torch is passed" to another member of the club, to veto another item on the list once it comes up...

 

[Miranda Brawner]

Form informal "veto clubs" within the legislature, each with an agenda of specific measures of the other party or parties to veto, once they come up for a vote... once a member of "the club" issues his/her veto, the "torch is passed" to another member of the club, to veto another item on the list once it comes up...

I like it. You could even have the club members resign once they've used their veto, so that a new party member can be elected. I imagine resignations would happen a lot, with the average term length dropping to no more than a year, maybe only a few days.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I can't see any country adopting that. Somehow similar was in Poland-Lithunaia and it didn't work very well. And I can't see that working even if every member of parliament can veto a law only once on their lifetime.

Exactly. This sounds like some attempt to reform that parliamentary rule (liberum veto).

 

[Aghasverov]

I like it. You could even have the club members resign once they've used their veto, so that a new party member can be elected. I imagine resignations would happen a lot, with the average term length dropping to no more than a year, maybe only a few days.

Yeah... I don't see this working out very well Politics would turn into a game of each party trying to come up with absolutely "veto-proof" legislation... probably unsuccessfully
It might be a slight improvement over the liberum veto of the old PLC, but not much of one...
I don't see anything ever getting done...

 

[Lalli]

Yeah... I don't see this working out very well Politics would turn into a game of each party trying to come up with absolutely "veto-proof" legislation... probably unsuccessfully
It might be a slight improvement over the liberum veto of the old PLC, but not much of one...
I don't see anything ever getting done...

Agree. Anything just can't be done. Nature of politicvs has always been that there is always someone who oppose something and is ready do everything to stop new legistarue or budget. And worst hing on this is that when it is noted being unviable system, it is really hard to change without someone commiting coup d'etat and becoming dictator. Or then other nations can mess with such country badly. No matter what, that kind of nation is going to be screwed. And that every members would have only one veto right in lifetime not help when there would be always new members on every election. That member who has used his veto probably wouldn't even run again so you would have new parliament where is not any such member who hasn't used his veto right.

Well, it would be bye bye for viable country.

 

[Gavp]

Once youve used your veto your likely to get voted out at the next election if your not able to carry the same powers as a newcomer

 

[Lalli]

Once youve used your veto your likely to get voted out at the next election if your not able to carry the same powers as a newcomer

Or then just doesn't run re-election. And so there woudl be new members on senate/parliament. Actually I would imaginate that on parliament is even more oc new members per election. This would produce several unexperienced members and probably more of lobbyism and ouright corruption.

 

[ferdi254]

And a member only has th threat his veto. Imagine tax or budget discussions with both sides threatening to veto unless taxes/spendings are raised/lowered.