Half a croissant, on a plate, with a sign in front of it saying '50c'
h a l f b a k e r y
Replace "light" with "sausages" and this may work...

idea: add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random

meta: news, help, about, links, report a problem

account: browse anonymously, or get an account and write.



Voting for public services

  (+3, -2)
(+3, -2)
  [vote for,

For stuff like Railway services, or public services, instead of having the government choose which companies gets the contract, why not have the people decide.

Different companies from different public sectors can band together under a 'party' and get employed by the people as a ticket. This is useful for lazy voters.

For voters who want finer control over their vote to a company, the voter can individually choose (or even write in a company) for each position.

This is a good alternative to typical privatization that is left in the hand of the government (and hence the government can blame the company, and the company can blame the government for problems, hence circular reasoning... thus confusing the voters, and letting the government get away with bad governance)

This also reduce backdoor lobbying, as you now have to convince 'voters', not politicians, if the company wants that position.


Good candidate country to try this experiment on: Somalia

Hell, why not have the same system for most of the government


Additional Notes:

The company needs to state how much they will charge, also the government needs to state the 'budget ceiling' for each services.

This will allow for voters to both discern best value, and allow the government to avoid paying beyond budget.

mofosyne, Feb 02 2012


       I'm confused ;) Judging by your category choice (other:general), you intend to let high ranking military types run the show?
normzone, Feb 02 2012

       now you're forcing the few companies left that actually produce good work to invest in marketing campaigns. And "voters" will make just as uninformed decisions as they usually do.   

       of course it probably couldn't be any worse than the current system.
FlyingToaster, Feb 02 2012

       -FlyingToaster, Feb 01 2012   

       Isn't that the point lol? Instead of companies paying money to lobbyist, they pay money to marketing and spin doctors.   

       And if the voters just make uninformed decisions, then at least its 'Our' uninformed decision. As opposed to random public servant or politicians, with lobbyist standing outside their doors with Plata (silver) on offer, and the occasional men in black with Plomo (lead) to offer.   

       And hey at least it would remove one excuse for voters to bitch about.   

       --normzone, Feb 01 2012 point taken lol
mofosyne, Feb 02 2012

       Then why not have the government set the highest acceptable payout, and have each company state how much they will charge?   

       Which means if the voters have half a brain, they can vote for best value company (e.g. not the highest charging company. But not the lowest charging company too!).
mofosyne, Feb 02 2012

       And goodbey halliburton.
zeno, Feb 02 2012

       Maybe. Or, possibly "Goodbye any company that spends less than its competitors on advertising."
mouseposture, Feb 02 2012

       // if the voters have half a brain //   

       That's a pretty tall order. Most voters are complete idiots like me.
Alterother, Feb 03 2012

       We do that here in Maine (with Legislative Spending Bonds and such), but it's gotten to the point that those who stand to profit most from the bonds get a couple of state legislators in their pocket and then phrase the ballot issue using very attractive ten-dollar words that dupe good- natured, well-meaning Mainers into voting for very expensive and time-consuming projects.
Alterother, Feb 03 2012

       At least its better than being an incomplete idiot.
RayfordSteele, Feb 03 2012


back: main index

business  computer  culture  fashion  food  halfbakery  home  other  product  public  science  sport  vehicle