Like any political option, the use has supporters and opponents.
Our state should, regardless of party or issue, take advantage of the fact it's exists and is used here.
What do I mean?

A group of students, working on their doctorates should be allowed to study this option. They could compile all the data on the use of the veto and find, objectively where it works for the common good, and where it shows abuses.

We can learn from such an option. But we don't.
Studying this could offer some changes, in how bills are proposed, appropriations allocated, pinpoint the partisan abusive methods this option affords both sides.
With the time we've had this option, there is surely a pattern in it's use, that could provide criteria for setting standards for it's place in legislation.
Both parties have added legislation designed for that options use. Each party often, adds amendments designed to undermine other amendments, to force the veto of certain things.
That objective data is important, in helping create the rules by which both state houses and the governors submit legislation, to avoid the veto's use.
While the governor is blamed entirely for using it; the legislation itself creates the reasons for the veto use.
The legislators could use the data to show budgetary failures, realize a bill is headed for a veto...and then act responsible and write legistaion that can avoid being vetoed. They intentionally allow garbage into the bills, that will get vetoed.
This is not productive, as the end always results in a later compromise.
Instead of acting like three year olds finger pointing, about what was vetoed; learn how that veto has taught us something about creating legislation. It was designed as a check...in that check and blanances thing, and should be embraced as the learning tool it is.

Doctoral students are the best choice to do this. Political science, law, ethics, and other concentrations of study could provide us with some valuable observations and recommendations, for this unique procedure, from fresh and dedicated perspectives.

Both sides use the veto to set each other up for ridicule, yet neither side appreciates what the process can really do.
Make the entire legislative processes more efficient, by accepting the power that veto option has; and be more attentive to what they send to the governor for signature.

We learn from our mistakes, at least most of us do.
I see this as a real opportunity to avoid the annual confrontation, and actually try and see the value it offers.
Eliminating the veto, will only further entrench the confrontational aspects of the annual budget dance.
Learning from it, might just shorten that dance to a jig.