h a l f b a k e r yWhere life irritates science.
add, search, annotate, link, view, overview, recent, by name, random
news, help, about, links, report a problem
browse anonymously,
or get an account
and write.
register,
|
|
|
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.
Please log in.
If you're not logged in,
you can see what this page
looks like, but you will
not be able to add anything.
Annotation:
|
| |
I'm confused ;) Judging by your category choice (other:general), you intend to let high ranking military types run the show? |
|
| |
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 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 |
|
| |
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!). |
|
| |
Maybe. Or, possibly "Goodbye any company that
spends less than its competitors on advertising." |
|
| |
// if the voters have half a brain // |
|
| |
That's a pretty tall order. Most voters are complete idiots
like me. |
|
| |
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. |
|
| |
At least its better than being an incomplete idiot. |
|
| |