[Dalewyn]

>[the legislature] must still be able to actually legislate

No, it doesn't have to.

Remember, the legislature is voted by the electorate, the voting public at large; the people of the city, county, state or country as applicable. If the legislature ends up so divided that passing laws with a supermajority to overrule executive vetos is impractical if not impossible, that suggests the people are divided and cannot come to a consensus on issues to be debated.

Why should the legislature pass laws when the people can't come to an agreement? That's not democratic. If the people can't agree, neither should their representatives agree and it's the duty of the executive to veto such legislative overreach.

[mike50]

In the real world there are other effects besides local votes. In the US limiting the amount of representatives in the legislature was resulted in 1 legislator for more and more people in civilization. If I represent hundreds of thousands of people how do I get a consensus from those people? The people when polled nationally agree on abortion or gun control poll for action by a decent percentage but congress has not acted. Also the legislature does more then pass new laws they vote on military appointments, sign treaties, determine judges, create budgets and more.