You know, something about this doesn't sit well with me. Maybe it's because this seems too much like a knee-jerk reaction to an issue so bizarre, that it shouldn't have even come up in the first place, or maybe it's because I'm concerned that we are rushing into another decision without fully exploring the potential consequences of our actions.
Have we fully explored the effects of such a decision on all stages of the game (ie. the beginning, middle, and end)?
In the beginning of the game, such power would surely rest in a single individual. This alone give me great pause. No other single individual has the power to rebuff the will of the people so efficiently.
Another point of concern would be the timeliness of certain polls and the problems that would arise from such veto power. We could potentially be faced with an entire string of cancelled turn chats because numerous polls had been overturned by the senate.
Of course, I'm imagining a possible worst case scenario, but we should consider worst case scenarios before we go changing laws. Furthermore, I believe this entire issue could have been avoided, and, more importantly, can be avoided in the future. I believe that even our esteemed president would be willing to admit that while his decisions immediately following the border poll were perfectly legal, they were not politically expedient.
In short, I believe the laws we have presently already provide us with the means to resolve these matters. We should be reluctant to write new laws, especially those that potentially weaken the voice and power of our citizens.
