It usually goes like this. One of you says a name you've quietly loved for years. The other pulls a face — they sat next to a terrible one at school. A counter-offer follows; you pull a face. Repeat for six months, getting slightly more annoyed each round, until "we'll know it when we see it" becomes the official family policy.
The problem isn't your taste. It's the method.
Why naming by veto fails
Pitching names one at a time turns every suggestion into a verdict. Each name starts at 0% and a single "no" kills it — so the only names that survive are the ones nobody feels strongly about. That's how couples end up with a name they're both merely fine with, while the names each of them loved died in round one.
Worse, the pitch itself changes the answer. Once a name is "yours", your partner isn't judging the name any more — they're negotiating with you. The fix for all of this is simple: stop revealing your hand first.
1. Write your lists separately
Both of you build a longlist alone — no commentary, no glancing over shoulders. Ten to fifteen names each, drawn from somewhere wider than your own memory (a big A–Z list, a themed collection, a name book). Then compare. The overlap is nearly always bigger than either of you predicted, and any name that appears on both lists skips the debate entirely — nobody pitched it, so nobody has to defend it.
2. Rate, don't veto
For the names that survive, swap the yes/no for a 1–5 score. A name you'd give 4 and your partner would give 3 is a genuinely strong candidate — but under veto rules it might never have surfaced, because "3" often comes out of the mouth as "not really". Scores find the quiet middle ground that verdicts flatten.
If you must veto, ration it: three absolute vetoes each, total, across the whole project. Spending one becomes a real decision instead of a reflex.
3. Hunt the taste, not the name
If your lists barely overlap, look at what each list has in common with itself. Are their picks all short and punchy? All vintage? All Celtic? You're not looking for the one name they'd accept — you're reverse-engineering their taste, then searching the part of the map where both of your tastes overlap. "You like vintage, I like short — so show me short vintage names" is a far more productive brief than another round of pitches.
4. Say it out loud, in real sentences
Names live in the mouth, not on paper. Before any name reaches the final round, both of you should say it in the sentences it'll actually be used in: called up the stairs, paired with the surname, introduced at a job interview in 2050. Names that look perfect can fail this test in seconds — and a name you were lukewarm about on paper can suddenly sound like your child.
5. The "who'd miss it more?" tiebreak
Down to two finalists and genuinely stuck? Don't take turns, don't flip a coin. Ask each other: if this name disappeared tomorrow, who'd miss it more? Strength of feeling is the fairest currency there is. A name one of you adores and the other quite likes beats a name you both quite like.
6. Set a deadline — and keep the name off the family group chat
Open-ended decisions expand to fill the time available, so give yourselves a real date a few weeks before the due date. And until then, resist polling relatives. Every extra opinion adds a stakeholder, and grandparents have vetoes of their own they will absolutely try to spend. Decide together, announce when it's done.
Quick answers
What if we can't agree on any name at all?
You almost certainly can — you just haven't found the overlap yet. The disagreement is loudest about the names one of you suggested first. Build lists separately from a wide pool and compare; the overlap is nearly always bigger than expected.
Who gets the final say?
No rule — but the happiest outcome is a name neither of you had to concede. If you're split, use the "who'd miss it more?" question rather than turn-taking.
When should we decide by?
Set your own deadline a few weeks before the due date. Keeping a final two for when you meet the baby works too — as long as you've agreed the two.
Is it normal to argue about this?
Completely. You're merging two lifetimes of associations. Treat it as taste-matching, not a debate to win, and it gets dramatically easier.