Final answer:
Voting on final agreements can face pitfalls like the inability to reach consensus due to opposing party goals, leading to the status quo. Executive agreements versus treaties also influence the stability of an agreement, and tradeoffs in interests are common in legislative decision-making.
Step-by-step explanation:
The potential pitfalls of voting on final agreements or packages in political bargaining can stem from the rigid bargaining positions of the negotiating parties. When parties have diametrically opposed goals, such as different views on tax policies, reaching a consensus becomes challenging. This can lead to a situation where, due to an inability to compromise, the status quo prevails, benefiting those who favor it and incentivizing them to impede negotiations.
Additionally, the use of different mechanisms, such as executive agreements versus treaties, can have long-term implications on the stability and reversibility of the agreement, exemplified by the polarized opinions on the Iran Nuclear Agreement.
Furthermore, in the context of the United States Congress, tradeoffs must be made, often leading to the prioritization of certain interests over others. Legislators must balance their voting choices between the concerns of their constituents, party dictates, and broad policy implications. Complex or controversial measures may also fare differently depending on whether they are presented during primary ballots or general election ballots, due to the varying levels of voter engagement and research.