The ombudsman, as it stands, is a shark without teeth. It cannot even smell a scandal if it was bleeding before their eyes — can’t sense, can’t bite, can’t act, can’t fix. It’s a watchdog with no jaws. So let’s give it an upgrade or even better give the government such an upgrade that Ombudsman loses the necessity for their entire existence.
This isn’t some grand ideological revolution. It’s just a silly idea for a public ticket system. Silly, but powerful.
Imagine a civic ticket system — not buried in obscure forms, not locked in back-office email chains. Just like an internal help-desk, but for governance. Public, structured, traceable. And smart.
This is what it looks like.
Core Idea
Citizens should be able to report issues publicly — not buried in anonymous inboxes, not hidden behind “ongoing investigation” seals. People already talk about public issues. If people can talk about public issues with their friends, why can’t they track them together too?
A government ticket system could work just like internal systems in IT or customer service — but with a civic twist.
This is not a place for endless debate. It’s a structure to frame problem → proposal → response, cleanly and traceable.
This system proposes a transparent, iterative problem-solving interface where AI is used not to obscure, but to clarify.
The System: Public, AI-Structured, and Transparent
The system is made up of 4 stages — and yes, it uses AI — but only as a tool to help people sharpen what they’re already saying.
Every issue goes through this cycle:
1. Problem Description
a) Citizens submit an issue.
b) The AI cleans up the language, consolidates overlapping inputs, and upgrades the coherence of the report.
c) A public change-log shows the input that evolved the description — all steps visible, all input attributable.
2. Proposed Solution
a) Based on the refined problem description, the AI drafts a solution or possible action path.
b) This is visible to the public as a formal response — no magic, just structured reasoning.
c) This is not a decision. It’s a draft — structured logic, not authority. Only advice.
3. Critique Layer
a) Citizens respond to the proposed solution — a structured challenge to the proposal..
b) Their remarks are also structured by AI — not censored, but upgraded for clarity and grouped by theme or angle.
c) Again, change-logs and input trails are visible. No anonymous edits. No hidden manipulations.
d) in a sense this is the same as step 1 (problem description)
4. Upgraded Solution
a) The AI integrates valid critiques and proposes a refined version of the solution.
b) This is the “feedback-reinforced” stage, where the system attempts synthesis, not endless argument loops.
All stages remain visible — including abandoned tickets, failed resolutions, and ongoing ones. This creates a living public record of issues and proposed governance responses.
This is the synthesis. 1 = 2 + 3 = 4.
Why This Matters
Business Model? Sure — But Keep It Public
Yes, this is a product. But no, it shouldn’t be commercialized. This is civic infrastructure. It belongs to the commons.
It could be sold to municipalities, NGOs, or transparency coalitions — but that defeats the purpose.
Build it, release it, and let it run at zero cost. The public has already paid for enough systems that don’t work. This one should.
The value lies not in monetization — but in legitimacy.
Expanded Use: From Complaint Board to Administrative Operating System
What starts as a feedback tool can evolve into a complete civic engine. The system can scale:
Each issue flows like a case file, but it’s public-facing and structurally transparent. Departments can adopt the system internally. Citizens and officials see the same state of the case. Updates are traceable.
With enough refinement, this system could even approach pre-judicial arbitration or replace lower-level administrative courts — especially for predictable, repeatable types of disputes (benefits, housing, permit denials, etc.).
At some point a judge and lawyer can then bend over the case after it went through these 3 steps.
Design Philosophy
Potential Impact:
If deployed at scale, this would:
Final Thought
Let’s stop treating public concern like noise.
Let’s give it a ticket.
Let’s give the ombudsman jaws.
Give people a way to speak clearly. Let the problems stay visible. Let the fixes be criticized. Let the system evolve in full view.
Democracy doesn’t die in darkness — it suffocates in forms. We’ve normalized arbitrary bureaucracy and opaque complaint systems. But the technology to upgrade them exists. All we’re missing is the will — and the will can be crowd-sourced.
Written by Artorius Magnus
https://tinyurl.com/laconic-utopia World-Peace suggestions @250 articles highschool dropout-autodidact (unofficially 5+ PhD's).
De stichting Behoud Over de Laak heeft de gemeente Amersfoort een aanbod gedaan om te werken volgens de zogenaamde zonneladder: eerst panelen op de daken. In dit voorstel toont de stichting aan dat benutting van 50% van het dakpotentieel van woningen en bedrijven in Vathorst meer oplevert dan 10 ha zonnevelden.
Het plan gaat uit van een aanbod aan woningeigenaren op basis van koop of huur/koop van zonne-installaties waarbij bewoners er altijd op vooruit gaan en zelfs kunnen aanschaffen zonder te investeren: de energierekening betaalt de installatie en na aflossing kan er nog jaren verdiend worden aan zonnestroom. Eén voorwaarde wordt daar wel aan verbonden: geen zonnevelden in Over de Laak! We zijn benieuwd of dit aanbod wordt omarmd.
Hoe snel gaat een petitie? Je maakt hem en de premier gaat gelijk zelf op bezoek in Groningen; als wij nu nog meetekenen allen; dan moet dat geld nu eens gaan "rollen" en de rust in Groningen weer terugkeren!.
Geachte heer Van den Belt,
Graag nodigen wij u uit om de petitie op donderdag 28 maart aanstaande om 20.00 uur in de raadzaal aan mevrouw Spies, voorzitter van de raad en het college, te overhandigen.
U krijgt kort de gelegenheid (circa 3 minuten) om de petitie toe te lichten aan raads- en collegeleden..
In het Aziatische staatje Brunei dreigt vanaf volgende week de doodstraf voor homo's. Een land als Nederland dient met landen die dergelijke mensenrechten schenden géén handel te drijven.
In Brunei dreigt vanaf volgende week de doodstraf voor homo's.
In het land treedt volgens mensenrechtenorganisatie Amnesty op 3 april nieuwe, strenge islamitische wetgeving in werking. Daarmee kunnen mensen die seks hebben met iemand van hetzelfde geslacht gestenigd worden.
Wij willen dat alle handelsbelangen met Brunei stoppen. Mensenrechten zijn meer waard dan economische belangen. Een land als Nederland dient geen enkele handel te bedrijven met landen waarin de rechten van mensen die seks hebben met iemand van hetzelfde geslacht worden geschonden en de doodstraf wordt gehanteerd.
Klik op de link hieronder. Dan kun je het stuk lezen wat is geschreven door zeer veel (240) wetenschappers uit 28 landen aan de United Nations, de World Health Organisation, de Europese Unie en zeer veel landenregeringen en instellingen. U kunt ook hier mee ondertekenen!
Stralingsvrije groetjes, Alfred Melse
.