Disadvantages of the one-vote veto system

There was a report published in the magazine "Ban Yue Tan": When a township petition cadre revealed the "inside story" of the petition work, he said that in order to strictly control the number of petitions, there would be no group petitions and no overstepping of ranks. Tasks such as petitioning or even zero petitioning will not be "vetoed with one vote". During sensitive periods such as the National People's Congress and the National People's Congress, special personnel will monitor the old petitioning households. Once "out of control" "receipts" and "interceptions" are made, all possible means will be used. All methods should be used to "cancel the account" in the superior petition department. This phenomenon is not an isolated case, but is common in the field of petitions. The work at the grassroots level is complicated. The grassroots government is seeking a balance between the implementation of superior policies and the actual interests of the people. In the process, it will inevitably harm the interests of some people, resulting in a series of contradictions, some of which ( Such as immigration issues) will inevitably arise in the process of social reform and development, and these contradictions cannot be resolved in a fixed period. They need to be constantly adjusted in the long historical process. In the process of social and economic development, and slowly melting with the progress of civilization. However, in order to avoid being "vetoed" by one vote, many grassroots governments do not face up to these contradictions when they arise, but blindly adopt coercive, violent and even illegal means to suppress the contradictions, so as to breed more conflicts. There are many corruption phenomena, and the contradictions have not been fundamentally resolved. When these contradictions are accumulated bit by bit and finally break out, the consequences will be unimaginable. The Weng'an incident in Guizhou some time ago is a clear example. The original intention of the one-vote veto system was to use the repressive power of authority to control corruption. There is no denying that this has also produced certain effects. However, the deep root of this problem is not facing up to it.

The act of proposing assessment goals that are unrealistic is even more subjective and one-sided. The "one-vote veto" assessment system actually sets up a red warning line for those being assessed. As long as they don't touch this red line, they will be fine in anything they do. Once they touch it, they will suffer. Under normal circumstances, in order to avoid conflicts and touch red lines, grassroots governments will give up opportunities for reform and exploration. Instead, they will blindly strictly follow the terms and step-by-step instructions from their superiors, and use "books" thinking as the basis for governance. Behavior guidelines, or even more, may adopt the method of doing nothing. Although this will not be vetoed by one vote in the end, the actual incentive effect that the assessment system should produce will be minimal because of this.