Why is there no veto right in systemic consensus? We are often asked that. At this point, we want to answer that.

Formal decision-making systems can be roughly divided into two directions:
Majority-oriented or consensus-oriented. The peculiarity that many people find about the consensus principle
is the protection of minorities by veto. As long as even one person has serious concerns in the form of a veto, a proposal cannot be implemented. Theoretically, everyone is taken along, objections are incorporated and fine-tuning is done until everyone agrees.

In practice, it often looks different and we have a few exemplary facts here
that at least question the point of the veto for us.

1. The vetoes are given an above-average amount of power . Suddenly, a
   small parliamentary group the majority. Whoever agrees last has the opportunity to
   under pressure. This can be observed, for example, in the EU, where regularly
   individual countries use their veto power to push through demands.
2. The status quo is unacceptable for many, but change is blocked .
3. If they can't agree, groups cut corners, for example in
   form of "consensus minus one" (one veto is not enough to block) or by only
   "serious objections" are allowed at all. Actual dissatisfaction
   with the decision is thus faded out by definition.
4. In more informal groups, discussions continue for as long as to those who have to deal with the
   decision, running out of steam.
5. To push through important issues , they will therefore be at the end of a longer
   meeting, because then no one wants to discuss any further.
6. Sometimes a pseudo-consensus emerges because no one wants to be seen as a blocker.
   People with objections are neither heard nor protected.
   And then there is the formulation of the proposal. For example, there was a small
   Community that still had money left over from a summer party and thought about what to do with it. Some wanted to buy a shade sail, but one person objected and used his veto. When we suggested formulating the proposal the other way around ("We'll leave the money in the bank"), suddenly three people had a veto. Depending on how a proposal is formulated and what the passive solution looks like, a veto has very different effects.

It therefore seems to us that a veto makes much more sense, especially in the case of conflict-prone
decisions, to find out among all possible solutions the one that suits the
consensus. And when the group realizes what is currently
is the most viable solution, it is not uncommon for it to be implemented by consensus by means of a fast-track procedure
adopted.