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).
Wat een wonderlijk commentaar. Veel tekst met weinig inhoud.
Ik citeer:
"We zien nu echter dat ontkenners van de menselijke invloed op het klimaat en de tegenstanders van klimaatmaatregelen dit onderwerp aangrijpen om de toekenning van dit eredoctoraat te framen op een manier die niet terecht is."
Ik, en ik alleen, begon deze petitie uitsluitend vanwege de onzin die Frans Timmermans over de energietransitie uitkraamde. En de petitie richt zich niet op hem, maar op de Rector Magnificus.
Of ik wel of niet ontkenner van de menselijke invloed ben komt geheel uit uw fantasie. Van mij kan u het niet gehoord hebben.
Wat ik daar van vind: Nederland gebruikt een kleine 1.000 tWh per jaar aan energie, waarvan na één generatie groen ploeteren nog steeds 95% uit fossiele brandstoffen komt. Dat noem ik geen energietransitie, maar hobbyen. Vergeet niet, dat wij in anderhalve eeuw opstoken, wat 300 miljoen jaar geleden voor ons is vastgelegd. Ik noem dat immoreel. Kernenergie is echt de enige reële optie, leuk of niet.
En het verlaten van de twijfel is een universiteit onwaardig.
Ergernis en schrik brachten mij tot de petitie.
'Boekwinkels behoren tot de niet-essentiële winkels. Dus zijn ze gesloten tijdens de lockdown.
Je kunt niet beweren dat ze dicht moeten blijven omdat er anders te veel reisbewegingen of boekenliefhebbersbewegingen zijn. In een boekhandel komen minder mensen dan in een supermarkt.
Mij verbaast de vanzelfsprekendheid bij een hoger echelon dat zegt dat boekwinkels niet essentieel zijn. De redenering om ze gesloten te houden (...)' lees verder
Tot mijn blijdschap reageerde de redactie direct en boetvaardig.
Hier het nieuwe artikel:
https://www.volkskrant.nl/nieuws-achtergrond/tu-delft-maakt-eurocommissaris-timmermans-eredoctor-en-alumni-protesteren-met-een-petitie~b5fcd6b7/.
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html
BRON: LoBianco, 2016
Washington(CNN) One of Richard Nixon's top advisers and a key figure in the Watergate scandal said the war on drugs was created as a political tool to fight blacks and hippies, according to a 22-year-old interview recently published in Harper's Magazine.
"The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people," former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman told Harper's writer Dan Baum for the April cover story published Tuesday.
"You understand what I'm saying? We knew we couldn't make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities," Ehrlichman said.
"We could arrest their leaders. raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did."
Ehrlichman's comment is the first time the war on drugs has been plainly characterized as a political assault designed to help Nixon win, and keep, the White House.
It's a stark departure from Nixon's public explanation for his first piece of legislation in the war on drugs, delivered in message to Congress in July 1969, which framed it as a response to an increase in heroin addiction and the rising use of marijuana and hallucinogens by students.
However, Nixon's political focus on white voters, the "Silent Majority," is well-known. And Nixon's derision for minorities in private is well-known from his White House recordings.
The comments come as there has been a marked shift in attitudes toward handling drug use -- ranging from the legalization of marijuana in various states to White House candidates focusing heavily on treatment as an answer to New Hampshire's heroin epidemic while they were campaigning across the state.
RELATED: 2016 candidates on the front lines of N.H. drug epidemic
Ehrlichman died in 1999, but his five children in questioned the veracity of the account.
"We never saw or heard anything from our dad, John Ehrlichman, that was derogatory about any person of color," wrote Peter Ehrlichman, Tom Ehrlichman, Jan Ehrlichman, Michael Ehrlichman and Jody E. Pineda in a statement provided to CNN.
"The 1994 alleged 'quote' we saw repeated in social media for the first time today does not square with what we know of our father. And collectively, that spans over 185 years of time with him," the Ehrlichman family wrote. "We do not subscribe to the alleged racist point of view that this writer now implies 22 years following the so-called interview of John and 16 years following our father's death, when dad can no longer respond. None of us have raised our kids that way, and that's because we were not raised that way."
Ehrlichman's comments did not surface until now after Baum remembered them while going back through old notes for the Harper's story. Baum said he had no reason to believe Ehrlichman was being dishonest and viewed them as "atonement" from a man long after his tumultuous run in the White House ended.
"I think Ehrlichman was waiting for someone to come and ask him. I think he felt bad about it. I think he had a lot to feel bad about, same with Egil Krogh, who was another Watergate guy." Baum told CNN.
Baum interviewed Ehrlichman and others for his 1996 book "Smoke and Mirrors," but said he left out the Ehrlichman comment from the book because it did not fit the narrative style focused on putting the readers in the middle of the backroom discussions themselves, without input from the author.
Baum equated Ehrlichman's admission with traumatic war stories that often take decades for veterans to talk about and said it clearly took time for Ehrlichman and other Nixon aides he interviewed to candidly explain the war on drugs.
"These guys, they knew they'd done bad things and they were glad finally when it was no longer going to cost them anything to be able to talk about it, to atone for it." Baum said. "Nobody goes in to public service, I don't think, on either side of the political aisle, to be repressive, to be evil. They go in because they care about the country."
Ha! een artikel in de volkskrant!
Dit schreef ik de redactie:
Geachte redactie,
Blij met de aandacht voor mijn petitie. Die sloeg om in wanhoop bij het lezen van deze zinsneden:
"Asselbergs en zijn medestanders kritiseren Timmermans’ positieve opvattingen over onder meer kernenergie. Hij zou daarmee de transitie alleen maar in de weg staan.
“
Dit is een dusdanige omkering van wat in de openingen van mijn petitie staat, dat van een typefout geen sprake kan zijn.
Ik beschouw het maar als kwade wil.
Hoogachtend,
Jan Asselbergs
allereerst de beste wensen! We hebben van het weekend een begeleidende brief geschreven om de petitie aan te bieden aan de toekomstige minister van VWS dhr E. Kuipers.
We hopen op een positief resultaat.
TU Delft wants to award Frans Timmermans an honorary doctorate for his alleged contributions to energy transition policy. However, Frans Timmermans is a champion of biomass plants and he claims that nuclear power is too expensive and that the construction of a plant takes 20 years.
This, and the message that Delft University publicly announced that doubt is excluded from climate discussions brought me to start a petition.
It would be nice if alumni include their titles. An anonymous vote has some value, but anonymity often is not necessary..
Open New Year message to the Rector of the Delft University of Technology (TU Delft) The Hague, January 1, 2022
Dear colleague van der Hagen,
In the capacity as former MSc student, former PhD student, former professor, former member of the Executive Board of the TU Delft – and also as an active member of the KNAW – I address you on the following at the first day of the new year.
Scientific organizations serve society by fostering, creating and passing on new scientific knowledge through research and teaching.
Today, quality universities have become a primary source of prosperity in the area where they are located. The higher the scientific level realized, the greater the contribution to prosperity.
Universities, therefore, should promote excellence at all times. This means that they should not settle for followership, but aim for leadership in their scientific fields. It also means that universities are communities without ideological and political purposes. And above all, at universities the principle of Freedom of Speech and Inquiry are by no means negotiable. History shows that new insights come from doubters and dissenters; they ensure scientific progress. Those scientific 'rebels' must therefore be given every freedom to question what already exists and to present new concepts, with the aim of getting closer to the truth. Universities should nurture these creative scientists. After all, consensus in science means the end of progress.
How different it is in politics. Politics is not about truth, but about power. In the most favorable situation, power is obtained democratically. Whoever manages to gather the most votes comes to power. We know that political rebels end up badly. So, searching for the truth has nothing to do with what the political majority wants. Every university should therefore keep far away from politics.
In short, truth-seeking (argumentum ad verecundiam) and power-seeking (argumentum ad populum) do not fit together at all. Even worse, they obstruct each other. The conclusion is therefore that University Boards should not ‘play little parliament’ in their boardrooms.
The foregoing brings me to the honorary doctorate you are going to confer on Frans Timmermans. This politician has done just about everything in his career to abuse science. He did so by intertwining searching for the truth with political majority building. That has led to the glorification of a climate theory that does not correspond to what we observe in nature, meaning it is scientifically wrong. And this wrong science has resulted into the introduction of a climate policy that has plunged Europe into an energy crisis. And that energy crisis means that Europe has been thrown into a negative socio-economic spiral. Colleague van der Hagen, with all respect, which technical or economic or social merits of Timmermans do you have in mind?
I invite you to watch and listen to this historic interview with Frans Timmermans:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xgEcIQ_WoiU
It was already clear even at that time that Timmermans intended to abuse science for his own political gain. The last ten years have only confirmed that. TU Delft, as a so-called 'climate university', went along with this. Now, you award an honorary doctorate to this person?
Finally, I repeat, Frans Timmermans, with his climate policy, has plunged Europe into an energy crisis with major socio-economic consequences. Please, look at the facts! I therefore urge you nót to award this man with an honorary doctorate. TU Delft will go down in history as the technological university that - under your leadership - scientifically supported the destructive climate policy of this politician and then even awarding him with an honorary doctorate.
Colleague van der Hagen, start the new year well and show courage by retracing your steps. Please, do nót confer an honorary doctorate on this politician.
With collegial regards, Guus Berkhout MSc student from 1952 -1957 Ph.D. Cum laude in 1971 Professor 1976 - 2016 Member of the Delft University Board from 1997 - 2001 Member of the Royal Netherlands Academy of Arts and Sciences since 1990