Should the Presdent have veto power

[Jack_www]

Please vote in poll and post thoughts here.

[Spiffor]

I'm against it (didn't you know )

The presidential veto is inherentently bound with the principle of Checks and Balances. However, while the it is necessary in real coutries with millions people, it isn't useful in our 14-people team. In a big country, people do not have a direct say, and are (imperfectly) represented by people who are only human. To avoid a "representative" institution to get too much power, there are checks and balances.

But in our direct Democracy, everybody has a direct influence on our policies. Hence, we don't have to fear an imperfect body getting too much power. After all, why would we want to limit the power of the people, i.e all of us ?

[Odin]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I'm against it (didn't you know )

The presidential veto is inherentently bound with the principle of Checks and Balances. However, while the it is necessary in real coutries with millions people, it isn't useful in our 14-people team. In a big country, people do not have a direct say, and are (imperfectly) represented by people who are only human. To avoid a "representative" institution to get too much power, there are checks and balances.

But in our direct Democracy, everybody has a direct influence on our policies. Hence, we don't have to fear an imperfect body getting too much power. After all, why would we want to limit the power of the people, i.e all of us ?

Vey true Spiff. I voted NO, NO, NO!

[Sharpe]

I voted no - mostly due to the way the yes answer was worded. I think the president should have a vote in the senate, but should be silent on how they voted.

I think that the president perhaps should have a veto, but it should be extremely limited in its use.

For instance, it seems likely that a turnchat will be used to do the first 5-10 turns at once - the entire senate cannot anticipate what will happen during these 1st few turns - there may be unforseen opportunties and threats to deal with.

[Tiberius]

I voted NO. If the Senate is the whole team (including the President, who can vote too), I see no reason why would the President have veto powers (the President more important than the whole team? I don't think so).

[Jack_www]

i can see that no one wants the veto power.

[ZargonX]

No, I think the President does not need to have this ability. I think the president would work in the best interest of the team anyway, and one would hope that the senate was as well, so an agreement should be reachable on that concept. Also, a Pres. veto will slow things down greatly if a Pres. has his own vision for the team that differs from the senate's.

[vondrack]

I agree with what Spiffor said. Voted NO.