According to the classical theory discussed in the first paragraph, a legislative veto is intended to achieve which of the following outcomes?

To ensure that a slim governing majority can rapidly enact sweeping, uncompromised legislation.

To incentivize opposing political factions to negotiate and produce broadly supported policies.

To permanently gridlock the legislative branch so that the executive branch is forced to act.

To punish politicians who cross party lines by exposing them to hyper-polarized primary voters.

It can be inferred from the passage that the "consensus-building model" of the legislative veto would function most effectively in a political environment characterized by:

voters who heavily penalize any politician who compromises with the opposing party.

a total reliance on unilateral executive orders to establish policy.

a degree of ideological flexibility that allows politicians to cross party lines.

a governing majority that holds enough seats to completely bypass the supermajority requirement.

The author mentions "primary voters" in the second paragraph primarily to:

illustrate why minority parties are incentivized to weaponize the legislative veto.

demonstrate that the American electorate strongly prefers moderate, broadly supported policies.

argue that the classical theory of democratic institutions fundamentally misunderstood human nature.

explain why the executive branch is forced to issue administrative mandates.

Which of the following scenarios is most analogous to the shift in the balance of governmental power described in the third paragraph?

A company's CEO decides to step down, allowing the board of directors to vote on a replacement through a supermajority consensus.

A university's student council cannot agree on a budget due to intense factional infighting, so the university president unilaterally allocates the funds.

A software development team uses an open-source voting tool to decide which features to include in their next patch, resulting in a highly popular update.

A local city council successfully negotiates a compromise between real estate developers and environmental activists.

←

The Weaponization of Consensus: Asymmetric Polarization and the Legislative Veto

PRACTICE

100:00+4 −1MCQ Single Answer

Reading Passage

In the classical theory of democratic institutions, supermajority requirements and legislative veto mechanisms—such as the filibuster in the United States Senate—were designed to function as safeguards against the "tyranny of the majority." Institutionalists argued that by requiring more than a simple majority to enact sweeping legislation, these mechanisms force opposing factions to compromise, thereby producing moderate, broadly supported policies. Under this traditional paradigm, the legislative veto acts as a protective shield for minority parties, ensuring their constituencies are not entirely marginalized by a slim governing majority. However, contemporary political scientists note that the efficacy of this consensus-building model relies heavily on ideological fluidity and bipartisan overlap. Over the past few decades, the emergence of "asymmetric polarization"—a phenomenon where political factions become rigidly ideological and refuse to cross party lines—has fundamentally altered the function of the legislative veto. Rather than facilitating compromise, the mechanism has been transformed into an offensive weapon used to manufacture institutional gridlock. When the electorate is hyper-polarized, yielding to compromise is frequently punished by primary voters. Consequently, minority parties are structurally incentivized to use the veto to stall all legislative action, prioritizing the denial of a legislative victory to their opponents over the negotiation of a moderate policy. The downstream effect of this weaponized gridlock is a profound shift in the balance of governmental power. As the legislative branch becomes paralyzed by its own consensus-mechanisms, the executive branch increasingly fills the policy vacuum through unilateral executive orders and administrative mandates. While this bypass mechanism allows for immediate governance, critics warn that it circumvents the deliberative legislative process entirely, ultimately creating an unstable policy environment where regulations are drastically reversed with every change in presidential administration.

The primary purpose of the passage is to: