but it avoids many issues down the road.

If you mean it avoids parties being salty that something is going through and doesn’t want to participate and/or try to undermine it, not really. People and their opinions change, people make not well thought out decisions that sound good only on paper, people get coerced or threatened into agreeing. So you’ll get disagreements even from a uninamous system.

I really don’t think that it’s worth the significant efficiency hit that such a system brings about. A good governing organisation needs to get shit done that benefits as many people as possible, not twiddle their thumbs in deadlock. When the government is in deadlock, the people, namely the poor and vulrnable in society, almost invariably suffers while there are no consequences to the rich elite and especially the people responsible. At the end of the day, a philosophically pure system that doesn’t produce results is useless.

Example: US vs China. The US has more checks and balances that in theory is intended that a larger consensus is required to make a decision than China has (whether that actually works as intended is a whole other story). But the US also takes literally decades to pass even the most basic of laws, or sometimes not at all (see codifying Roe v Wade, they had half a century). Meanwhile, China has been on a reform rampage in recent years, and the changes have been massively beneficial to their people.