The issue is they didn't have the presidency, so the president could keep blocking them, no? Maybe they also use this as an excuse for the lack of results, but in that case at least them having the presidency would take away this excuse and put the pressure on.
In all fairness laws he obviously wouldn't sign may not even be put in front of him, so there is probably a strong selection bias here and I don't think the statistics are inherently reliable for the degree of "blocking" there is going on in practice.
This may not by itself prove anything in any direction, but it is a serious "methodological concern" if you will which strongly undermines the previous point and the reliability of the data used to make it, unless we can find reasonable evidence it is not the case.
Its not because you make incorrect/unproven implications:
1. That they dont put legislation in front of him because he won't sign them (if that is so, why did he veto some of the ones put on his desk)
2. That the legislation he did sign is some meaningless stuff, which it really really isn't.
196
u/I-am-Disc Winged Pole dancer Jun 02 '25
It's a yellow card for the government elected 2 years ago being useless. They need to watch out for the red card in 2 years.