You, the petitioner

Updates

A Ticket System for Government (Or: Let’s Finally Give the Ombudsman Teeth)

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

  • It forces clarity and traceability. No more vague complaints floating in chaos.
  • It turns public input into a collaborative upgrade process.
  • It shows which tickets are being handled, stalled, ignored — in plain sight.
  • It makes every AI edit accountable, not mysterious.
  • It doesn’t replace the ombudsman — it arms them.

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:

  1. Reported Issue
  2. Processed Issue (by a public servant or automated filter)
    • AI-generated remark on process adequacy (4-stages again)
  3. Re-open option if resolution was insufficient (4-stages again)
  4. Cross-department visibility and workflow mapping
    • The ticket can go through different departments and the work of each department remains visible.

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

  • Public by default.
  • AI-enhanced, not AI-obscured.
  • Built around iteration, not resolution-hiding.
  • Input is traceable. Reasoning is legible. Logic is public.
  • Not built to silence citizens with forms — but to cohere chaos into clarity.

Potential Impact:

If deployed at scale, this would:

  • Reduce performative complaint culture (“I ranted online!”) in favor of traceable input.
  • Provide oversight journalists and watchdogs with live case data.
  • Offer civil servants a way to separate noise from signal.
  • Create longitudinal accountability: we’d know what failed, what improved, and why.
  • We can track government efficiency through details such as backlog and amount of re-opened cases

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 Stem artikel Jeugdzorginstelling eist video badende baby van internet wordt verwijderd

https://www.bndestem.nl/zeeland/jeugdzorginstelling-eist-dat-video-van-uit-huis-halen-badende-peuter-van-internet-verdwijnt~a03ba3ec/.

Jeugdzorg doet aan kinderhandel

Bericht op Nederland Heelt van december 2015. Zelfs de Inspectie Jeugdzorg concludeert dat Jeugdinstellingen de rechter omzeilen wanneer zij een kind willen laten behandelen, dit gebeurd niet in het belang van het kind maar door financiële problemen.

https://www.nederlandheelt.nl/t514-dus-jeugdzorg-doet-aan-kinderhandel.

Kinderhandel in de Jeugdzorg

Interessante informatie over de Kinderhandel in de Jeugdzorg artikel van Noorland Juristen! https://www.noorlandjuristen.nl/Strafrecht/Misdrijven/Kinderhandel/index.htm.

Het Twiske dreigt een vakantie- en festivalpark te worden

Kom allen op maandag 14 juni om 19.15 uur naar het gemeentehuis van Oostzaan. Dan bieden we buiten de petitie aan, waarbij we de coronaregels in acht nemen.

Iedereen kan inspreektijd aanvragen bij griffie@oostzaan.nl voor de commissievergadering op 14 juni vanaf 19.30 uur.

Maandag 14 juni, Oostzaan

.

Meer publiciteit

In De Stentor van vandaag wordt er aandacht besteed aan de door ons opgestarte petitie. Dank daarvoor. We merken dat het aantal inschrijvingen gestaag stijgt.

+Read more...

Veel reacties krijgen we binnen. Via Internet, Email, maar ook op straat. Fijn dat het meer begint te leven. we zitten nu net onder de 150 ondertekenaars en dat is hoopvol. https://behouddevullerschool.petities.nl

Stap 1; aanlokkende pandemicide

Vandaag (31 mei) heeft het kabinet stap 1 van de groepsimmuniteit (pandemicide) d.m.v scholen ingezet. De scholen mogen deze week nog zelf besluiten of ze volledig willen open gaan of niet.

+Read more...

Veel scholen blijven deze week nog half-onderwijs geven gelukkig. Vanaf 7 juni wordt het zelfs verplicht. Hopelijk blijven ook dan vele scholen gedeeltelijk onderwijs aanbieden.

al diverse interviews in diverse kranten regio Purmerend.

Heb al wat interviews gehad in diverse kranten rond om Purmerend. Er volgen nog meer. Hoop dat het donderdag ook in de Purmerends Nieuwsblad het komt te staan over de laadpalen voor de scootmobiels.

+Read more...

Men kan deze ondertekenen tot 09-08-2021. Doe dat nu nog even voor dat het niet meer kan. Zie ook de facebook uitjes en vrienden groep Purmerend en op de website www.uitjesenvriendengroep.nl . Daar staat ook een brief op die ingevuld kan worden en op gestuurd kan. Adres staat op deze brief. Deze handtekeningen worden dan aan de gemeente aangeboden hier in Purmerend. Ook als scootmobiel bezitter kunt u meer doen en ook het ondertekenen.

200 ONDERTEKENINGEN!

Hey Toppers! Binnen anderhalve dag hebben we al 200 ondertekeningen! Echt super dit en heel erg bedankt♥️♥️ Je kan tot 12 juni ondertekenen dus vergeet ook niet de petitie te delen binnen je huis of galerij appgroep of met vrienden en familieleden die de liften ook vrezen. X Toine.