Skip to main content
Mountains at sunset, with a person looking out over the landscape

A proposal under discussion

Less theatre,
more results.

A new model for elections and public management, centred on projects and the teams that carry them out.

Understand the proposal

What can we learn from other countries?

These experiences inform the debate. They do not represent adoption of OpenGov3.

Choose projects. Know who will carry them out.

Depersonalising means putting projects and delivery teams at the centre of elections.

Depersonalising means reducing dependence on charisma, fame and loyalty to a political figure. People continue to make decisions and remain accountable for them. Each project must make it possible to identify who proposed it, who decided, who implemented it and who verified the information. Focusing on projects requires clearer personal and institutional responsibility.

  • Comparable projects

    • The problem to be solved and the quality of the proposal.
    • Clear objectives, budget, deadlines and deliverables.

  • Identified teams

    • Skills and delivery records available to citizens.
    • Specific expertise for health, education, security and every other area.

  • Public responsibility

    • Political leaders could join or lead projects, with clearly identified responsibilities.
    • Budgets, contracts, payments, deadlines and deliverables accessible to the public.

  • Continuity and evaluation

    • Teams' reputations would rest on public criteria and what they have delivered.
    • Long-term projects would continue beyond the electoral calendar, with evaluation and corrections.

How it could work

  1. Set priorities

    Society identifies needs and discusses what deserves attention.

  2. Compare projects and teams

    Proposals set out objectives, resources, deadlines and the track record of those seeking to implement them.

  3. Choose commitments

    The decision follows public criteria. Rules for participation and representation need to be defined.

  4. Implement with accountability

    Identified teams are accountable for the use of resources, deadlines and deliverables.

  5. Monitor and correct

    Citizens check progress. Results and problems inform adjustments and the evaluation of those responsible.

An election that continues after the vote

First, people identify priorities. Then they compare programmes with accountable teams. The chosen commitment links budgets, delivery and outcomes.

Fictional Municipality Alpha. All amounts, teams, histories and results are invented to explain the proposal. This demonstration does not record votes.

1. Set priorities

Which problem should come first? Your choice below only highlights an area in this demonstration. A real design would need to ensure in-person participation, territorial representation and equal participation rights.

2. Compare projects and teams

Alternatives A and B compete to meet the same target. The proposed choice includes a programme and its identified management team. People remain accountable for decisions and delivery.

Health

Median wait for a primary care appointment

Starting point → target60 → 45 days

Municipal primary care network. Referral arrangements and agreements with other levels of government must be identified.

Area limit: BRL 35 million

Scheduling and capacity

Health Team A

Integrate schedules, reduce missed appointments and extend hours at existing facilities.

Target deadline: 12 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 28 million
Implementation
BRL 4 million
Operation during the period
BRL 24 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 6 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
8
On time
6/8
Quality met
7/8
Median cost deviation
+6%

Risk and context: Depends on available staff, integrated records and actual care capacity. Primary care programmes; scope and responsibilities need to be compared.

New facilities

Health Team B

Establish two facilities and organise teams and care in underserved areas.

Target deadline: 24 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 34 million
Implementation
BRL 18 million
Operation during the period
BRL 16 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 4 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
12
On time
9/12
Quality met
10/12
Median cost deviation
+3%

Risk and context: Requires land, permits, construction and permanent operating funding; results take longer. Network expansion; construction and operation have different risk profiles from alternative A.

What else must be measured: The open waiting list, longest waits, clinical quality and differences between neighbourhoods.

Mobility

Median travel time on the defined municipal corridor

Starting point → target50 → 35 min

Corridor and operation within municipal authority, with metropolitan interfaces made explicit.

Area limit: BRL 30 million

Bus priority

Mobility Team A

Introduce road and signal priority, adapt stops and ensure maintenance.

Target deadline: 12 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 24 million
Implementation
BRL 16 million
Operation during the period
BRL 8 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 2 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
10
On time
8/10
Quality met
8/10
Median cost deviation
+4%

Risk and context: May shift congestion elsewhere; requires enforcement, accessibility and traffic coordination. Comparable urban corridors; monitor effects outside the treated section.

Network and integration

Mobility Team B

Reorganise routes and connections, adapt stops and improve operational integration.

Target deadline: 18 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 29 million
Implementation
BRL 20 million
Operation during the period
BRL 9 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 2.25 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
6
On time
5/6
Quality met
5/6
Median cost deviation
+5%

Risk and context: Route changes may increase transfers and disadvantage some users. Networks of different sizes; a smaller sample than alternative A.

What else must be measured: Reliability, accessibility, road safety and effects on neighbouring streets and routes.

Municipal safety

Median municipal guard response time to eligible incidents

Starting point → target18 → 12 min

Municipal guard and prevention; criminal investigations, state police and the judiciary retain their own powers.

Area limit: BRL 20 million

Coordinated response

Safety Team A

Integrate dispatch, train teams and organise territorial response with quality oversight.

Target deadline: 12 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 17 million
Implementation
BRL 5 million
Operation during the period
BRL 12 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 3 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
7
On time
5/7
Quality met
6/7
Median cost deviation
+4%

Risk and context: Faster response alone does not demonstrate reduced violence. Triage must not exclude serious cases. Municipal programmes; quality includes rights, not the volume of police stops.

Local presence

Safety Team B

Reorganise local bases and preventive routes, with training and integrated incident response.

Target deadline: 18 months

Cost over 48 months
BRL 19 million
Implementation
BRL 7 million
Operation during the period
BRL 12 million
Annual operation after the period
BRL 3 million

Fictional history: previous four years

Completed projects
4
On time
3/4
Quality met
3/4
Median cost deviation
+2%

Risk and context: Redistributing presence may leave other areas less well served; effects must be measured across the whole area. A shorter history; results should not be compared as though sample sizes were equal.

What else must be measured: Open incidents, severity, territorial distribution, use of force, rights and people's safety.

Compare scope, context and sample size. History is not an automatic reputation score, and new teams must be able to participate.

3. Commit within the budget

Fictional portfolio of new improvements over 48 months. Essential services and existing obligations are outside this scope, with protected funding. Annual spending authorisations remain necessary.

Portfolio limitBRL 100 millionChosen projectsBRL 69 millionProtected reserveBRL 15 millionUnallocated balanceBRL 16 million

The elected team is not the contracted supplier. Purchases and works follow separate competition and oversight rules. Replacing responsible people requires service continuity, justification and a right of reply.

4. Monitor and hold accountable

The project links each contract, accepted delivery and payment. This fictional execution snapshot does not represent the end of the term or a physical completion percentage.

Indicator scenario
Health

Health Team A

Contracted
BRL 12 million
Value of accepted deliveries
BRL 8 million
Paid
BRL 7 million

Observed value in this scenario45 days

Mobility

Mobility Team A

Contracted
BRL 14 million
Value of accepted deliveries
BRL 10 million
Paid
BRL 9 million

Observed value in this scenario35 min

Municipal safety

Safety Team A

Contracted
BRL 9 million
Value of accepted deliveries
BRL 6 million
Paid
BRL 5 million

Observed value in this scenario12 min

Reaching a target does not prove causal impact. Check quality, the population served, costs and an appropriate comparison before scaling up.

5. Preserve the history

  1. Version 1 · original commitment
  2. Version 2 · justified change

Document + responsible person + signature + hash + verifiable record

The proposal uses document versions, signatures and hashes, with blockchain recording still to be defined. A revision preserves the original and identifies the reason, responsible person and authorisation. A hash helps verify file integrity; it does not prove that delivery occurred.

Electoral rules, coordination across areas, independent oversight, appeals and network governance remain under study. Secret voting requires its own protocol; individual choices and sensitive data must not be exposed. This page makes no blockchain transactions.

The rules for representation, team selection and institutional implementation remain under discussion.

What is OpenGov3? Try a priorities simulation