Infocracy - Vote now!

[cool]

Infocracy - a word I coined a few years ago.

What does it mean?

Well, over the last decade or so, I have travelled far, and wide, been to over 40 countries now and met lots of people from diverse cultures and everywhere I go, I find that there are very poor people (especially in the 3rd world countries) who have nothing, and then there are the aristocrats that have everything and there are so much misery and suffering as well. You can not imagine... and then even in rich nations, people are so controlled by their media without even knowing it.

Basically, I was thinking, and thinking and came up with the idea of Infocracy that would replace Democracy.

Now, in democracy, basically how a country is run is mainly determined by the majority and no matter how much we want to protech the minority, we will end up with the majority discriminating against the minority.

You can see this everywhere and it's always resulted in government corruptions what siphoned out the economy's monies into cronies' pockets.

The greatest threat to a person's freedom and a happy way of life is government corruptions and in-efficiencies introduced to the economy.

So, I came up with the idea of Infocracy, where the basic goverment policies are ruled by the 'best possible information available to the time' rather than a 'favorite vote'.

So, the base philosophy have shifted to merit based society, rather than a popularity contest.

Under Infocracy, the basic foundation of a government has to be changed. Instead of democracy at the top of the loop, it'll be at the middle. So, for example, before someone can run for President, he/she has to have a certain qualification as determined by the need of the position. And say, someone wants to be the minister of energy, that person must have a PHD in related energy studies. So, you have the cream of the crop running for a position, then only will democracy take place, ie, people can vote for the pre-selected candidates.

And once the candicate gets the position, they will then create a blue print for the future of their plans for the improvement of the country's energy plans, for example. But utilizing infocracy still, when a project is up for tender, companies can then put in their tenders and only a qualified group of citizens (say anyone with a diploma in energy) and vote for the winning bid (not the minister).

Well, that's just the basic idea, but the entire infocratic blueprint is extremely involved and complex and I can't discuss it all here. It also involves chaning the way money is defined. But that's harder to explain now.

So, what are your thoughts on this? Cast your vote! Cheer me on or splash cold water in my face!

Ask questions and I'll try to answer.... I have not fully concretized my concept yet.. still exploring it philosophically...

Infocracy
Philosophy on a new method of government whereby Current and Most Accurate Available Information is central to all decision making, rather than acceptance by majority.

Infocrat
Person who's philosophy is in line with Infocracy

DEBATE

Feel free to debate your issues with infocracy, what you see as bad/good, or why you prefer other ways such as democracy and why you think there's no prob with one way or another. Let's see where we get from there....

[cfom]

I think it's a great idea!! Mainly because a lot of the people that are ministers, don't even have a degree in the subject that they're controling.. That's kind of worring.. But I basically like your idea, and think it's a great solution to all the bad things happening..

[cool]

yay, cfom, my first supporter! you didn't vote yet.. please vote yay!!

[luvin_life808]

personally i like our gov.

[diadori]

i think this is a good, smart idea. it'd keep people like bush out of office and will make sure that the person in charge of that position that they have knows about ut. i vote yes! :]

[cool]

Originally Posted by diadori

i think this is a good, smart idea. it'd keep people like bush out of office and will make sure that the person in charge of that position that they have knows about ut. i vote yes! :]

Diadori, glad you see the advantage. Although I am a great supporter of Democracy, which is one of the greatest invention or philosophy of all time, because it gave us people power over aristocrats or kings and emperors and bishops who ruled us during most of our history and did a really, really horrible job!

But then even though democracy is the best we can come up with for now that satisfies almost everyone, I see that in most countries that are considered democratic, the people are still suffering greatly.... why? Because it's a hit and miss, really. What if the majority of the people are stupid for instance? Or, what if the majority of the people can be swayed by some sweet talking leader? Remember that people in large groups have the IQ of the lowest denominator, that means that the larger the group is, the dumber their decisions becomes.

It's easy to see the above point by looking at how Private Companies are run vs Governments.

Private Companies are NOT democratic, rather they are already utilizing my infocratic principles, ie, information is king and the faster they get the latest information, the better they would compete and companies that rely on technology and information would succeed and be more efficient.

Democratic Governments (although better off than say dictators or communism), had to kow tow to the general public at large, and usually we get people in charge who are supreme with 'speech' and perhaps 'looks good' and perhaps even lure us with our own prejudices, and worm their way into the office of power and make dumb decisions!

Since you brought up the point about Bush, lets see what actually happened in a democratic nation and what would have happended in an infocratic one.

In Democratic nation such as the USA, Bush ran under the banner of religion and religious values and since the religious right is extremely powerful as a group, he got elected by continuously appealing to the religious intolerance of gay rights (bush ran mostly bashing gay marriage and gay groups, which made the religious thinks he's their man). He won the hearts of that powerful group and got himself elected. (note: there are other reasons he got elected such as some people may claim his party stole the votes, etc, but I think the second election told us how he got re-elected anyways).

And once he got elected, he started 2 wars and caused the US tons of wastage of money and resources and not to mention lost of over 100,000 lives and the misery and suffering of an entire nation...

Now, on the other hand, what if it was an Infocratic Nation?

First of all, like diadora said, with proper checks and balance of pre-qualification of what we would deem a person need to be able to run for presidency such as, I would assume:

• PHD in Political Science and Economics perhaps?
• Long life of being a person of dignity and value
• Knows how to speak at least ONE language well, and perhaps even communicate with more languages?
• Have served the world at some sort of global capacity (respectable position?)
• blah, blah.. (you can add qualifications here)

Second, even if he got elected, he won't have the right to go to war because of faulty information because the excuse to go to war in iraq was that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and was planning to use it.. But any expert (including the the UN guy in charge of dismantling Saddam's weapons program have asserted that there were none) would confirm that the story was bogus, plus the whole world knew it was bogus (I knew that for a fact because I have at that time travelled to about 13 countries and hardly anyone from any of those countries bought bush's story)..

Basically in a word, the information did not add up, and his power, under infocracy would have been eroded as the chief of war..

NOTE: I do not mean any dis-respect to the religious groups of America, but the above statements were well known and it was Bush's strategy on how to win the votes. This did not mean that the religious wanted war, but because they voted their 'values' or, their own prejudice rather than voted for the best person for the job, it could result in disaster. Countless examples can be made if you go country after country. Another example would be Indonesia, where the governments are elected democratically, and they voted for Suharto who became a dictator who caused misery to over 200 million people for over 30 years...

Here's a Test or Thought Experiment

1. Wouldn't it be best if the best and most qualified gets the power to make the decisions?
2. If the above is true, can a democratic nation (say, the most democratic one) elect the best?

All of you would probably agree with statement 1), but the answer to statement 2) would be 'NO'.

Why? Because you can't possibly win an election for Presidency if you're NOT a christian for example, and what if the best person or smartest person is a non-christian?? Or, see how hard it is for a Black or Hispanic or Woman to be President? What if they are actually the most qualified? In an infocratic society, the voting mechanism would follow a certain process that would be refined until people in office or decision making positions are only able to get into their positions if:

a) they possess the appropriate qualifications
b) they are voted (democratically) into office by other qualified citizens

It may seem discriminatory at first glance that only a sub-set of people can vote for a sub-set of positions, but then why would you have any business in making a decision on who's best for the job of a say 'Attorney General' if you did not understand some basic level of law and philosophy? So, it's still democratic in a way that anyone can still vote for anyone, provided they want to spend the time taking part time courses to get a certificate in a certain field.

[pinkhaireddreamboy]

i think itd be better just to reform democracy to fit the infrocracy ideals. it'd be almost impossible, i think, to introduce a whole new government to a powerful country such as the united states.

it does sound a thousand times better than democracy though.. its too easy for an unqualified person to run for a position of power just because he/she is wealthy and has "connections" through his/her family. we should really hold higher standards for the potential people who will run our country...
i also think that even in a country like the US much of the population themselves arent exactly qualified for voting for a respectable canidate. instead of taking voting rights away of course, we should just be provoided with "preapproved" canidates whom all of which are not corrupt, unknowledgable in politics and economics, evil, and unintelligent.

in an ideal government i think that there would be no "head of the government" person. you would in fact not vote for people at all. the "canidates" would not have names, religions, genders, etc. anything that would provide a bias for or against them. people would just vote for ideas and there would certainly not be just democrats and republicans to choose from. i dont know if this would actually work, but im just saying my thoughts kind of aimlessly....

[cool]

Originally Posted by pinkhaireddreamboy

i think itd be better just to reform democracy to fit the infrocracy ideals. it'd be almost impossible, i think, to introduce a whole new government to a powerful country such as the united states.

Agreed. But remember, I am only writing a book on this philosophy but it'll be many generations before people or governments adopt it, if they ever will that is.. but I think by spreading the idea, it'll take root for future generations.

Don't forget that Democracy itself is pretty young and it was based on philosophy of a secular government as well. Before that, most of Europe was ruled by the Church (religious government, or non-democratic) and it took a long, long time to convert people into a democratic society. Although most muslim countries are still not secular today.

It does sound a thousand times better than democracy though..

I think so.. but who knows.. until it's well debated, my own perspective may be flawed. That's why I am starting this debate here and see where it goes.

in an ideal government i think that there would be no "head of the government" person. you would in fact not vote for people at all. the "canidates" would not have names, religions, genders, etc. anything that would provide a bias for or against them. people would just vote for ideas and there would certainly not be just democrats and republicans to choose from. i dont know if this would actually work, but im just saying my thoughts kind of aimlessly....

Wow! Pinkhaireddreamboy! I am impressed! This is one of the 100s of blueprint that I am considering as part of the mechanism or process of an Infocratic society.

Here's an idea I am playing around:

Step 1

Candidates (for whatever top level government positions) make it known that they want to run for said position

Step 2

This is the vetting process (part of infocracy). This process would determine who are the qualified ones for the said position. (note: the actual qualifications itself may be a continual process that changes constantly).

Step 3

Qualified candidates would present their 'grand plans' for the next term that they are in office, ie, what they plan to do or what direction they want to take whatever office they are running on to... for example an energy minister should have a 5 year plan for example of what he wants to do, what budget needed, etc, etc.. basically their blue print.

Step 4

The public who wants to vote for the said candidates running for said position must also be pre-qualified, although this qualificaiton is much easier (no need to be phds), but can be a certificate holder or take a 3 month course in a subject matter. Basically the voters must know all the facts and science or information needed to make an informed decision. So, this part is where we are keeping democracy, ie, ANYONE can still vote for ANYONE they like (so long as they are qualified). Basically, you can't complain that you can't vote because if you really feel strongly about a particular position, then spend the 3 months getting certified! Be informed, or you have no business voting.

Step 5

This is what (basically you said), which is what I am also working on. Ie, people would vote on a plan of action or the 'grand blue prints' presented by the candidates wihout knowing who the candidates are. For example, you logged online and view 10 plans (and just vote for the one you think is most feasible and best and that you value). And whichever candidate's plans get voted the best, gets into office.

Note: This is oversimplification. You not only vote for the grand schema, but you also need to know how the candidate's personality is really. Because in all top ranking positions, i think a person still needs to be personable. So, there may be say 20-30% of points going to the actual person himself (whether you like him or not). Maybe even 50% of the points could be given by un-qualified voters?? As you see, the whole concept is still not concrete..

Step 6

Once a candidate is in office, if he suddenly do not do what he said he would, he'll be put on a tribunal and if the tribunal finds no good reasons why he suddenly changed his mind, he'll instantly be thrown out of office before his term is out.

Step 7

Once he laid out the plans (basically he's the project manager), then contracts are put out for bidding by private companies.

Step 8

Companies will then bid for the project (with their project plans). Again, a pool of qualified voters (from the public) will read those bids and select a winner. Note: these voters need to have minimum of degrees (far harder). But there'll be 10,000s of suitable candidates in each fields so each project would have 1000s of public voters and therefore there'll be no way for bribery or corruption.

Since the Project Manager (the minister), can't possibly make money from any projects, there'll be no corruption and he'll only create the best plan he can think to benefit the people.

-------

BTW: we are just starting to scratch the surface. The thread here so far only deals with the very basic concept or underlying philosophy on decision making the way to manage a country. The specifics are not ironed out yet.

I am going to slowly talk more about the total infocracy plan as we go along.... or the threads will be too long (like a book)....

Let's discuss further.. very cool....

[pinkhaireddreamboy]

Originally Posted by cool

Agreed. But remember, I am only writing a book on this philosophy but it'll be many generations before people or governments adopt it, if they ever will that is.. but I think by spreading the idea, it'll take root for future generations.

you're writing a book? what does the name mean btw...? is it just like democracy only instead of demo its info = information. lol

Don't forget that Democracy itself is pretty young and it was based on philosophy of a secular government as well. Before that, most of Europe was ruled by the Church (religious government, or non-democratic) and it took a long, long time to convert people into a democratic society. Although most muslim countries are still not secular today.

definitely! i just meant if you tried to overthrow the US government or something and force infocracy on everyone. haha, i dont think thatd go over well. it would be interesting to see how it became adapted over a period of time though

The public who wants to vote for the said candidates running for said position must also be pre-qualified, although this qualificaiton is much easier (no need to be phds), but can be a certificate holder or take a 3 month course in a subject matter. Basically the voters must know all the facts and science or information needed to make an informed decision. So, this part is where we are keeping democracy, ie, ANYONE can still vote for ANYONE they like (so long as they are qualified). Basically, you can't complain that you can't vote because if you really feel strongly about a particular position, then spend the 3 months getting certified! Be informed, or you have no business voting.

oo, ive never thought of that before. thats an excellent idea since a lot of people just vote for stupid reasons. i.e. my friend's grandmother voted for bush in his second term because she thought john kerry looked weird (he is very odd looking.. but john edwards made up for it) and as youve said, i know plently of people who have just voted for bush because of his religious affiliation.

Note: This is oversimplification. You not only vote for the grand schema, but you also need to know how the candidate's personality is really. Because in all top ranking positions, i think a person still needs to be personable. So, there may be say 20-30% of points going to the actual person himself (whether you like him or not). Maybe even 50% of the points could be given by un-qualified voters?? As you see, the whole concept is still not concrete..

yeah i think i overlooked the importance of the human-ness of the candidate. it would feel like voting for a machine or something otherwise... what do you mean by "50% of the points could be given by un-qualified voters"?

Step 7

Once he laid out the plans (basically he's the project manager), then contracts are put out for bidding by private companies.

Step 8

Companies will then bid for the project (with their project plans). Again, a pool of qualified voters (from the public) will read those bids and select a winner. Note: these voters need to have minimum of degrees (far harder). But there'll be 10,000s of suitable candidates in each fields so each project would have 1000s of public voters and therefore there'll be no way for bribery or corruption. winner. Note: these voters need to have minimum of degrees (far harder). But there'll be 10,000s of suitable candidates in each fields so each project would have 1000s of public voters and therefore there'll be no way for bribery or corruption.

Since the Project Manager (the minister), can't possibly make money from any projects, there'll be no corruption and he'll only create the best plan he can think to benefit the people.

i dont completely understand this part..


this is all very well thought out though!

[13th_hr]

(I just read the first post and a few after that, so I'm might be missing something or mis-understand something. I'll probably have more to add but I'm sleepy and lazy to read this whole thread but I will when I'm more awake. lol)

But for now....

I think that not knowing the gender, religion, etc. of a candidate is interesting so there aren't any bias votes. But the majority vote on looks, religion etc. People are shallow and tend to be lazy, especially with politics.

Now if I'm understanding this right, infocracy is voting based on information best suited for the current time?

I know the only way for infocracy to work is to have the voters well informed. Most people (like me) wouldn't care for the 3 month course to be a qualified voter. I would just not vote at all. People would think it's a waste of time and have things they would rather be doing. I know many people aren't into politics and would have a "screw that" attitude.

So how would you get people to take the course? Many people would feel they have the right to vote since they pay taxes and shouldn't have to take the course just to be able to vote. I mean, it's hard enough to get people to vote already.

....I pondered this question (I tend to debate against myself lol) and thought that maybe it should be a mandatory course in high school. Since voting is 18 and you graduate at that age.

hmmm....I'll probably have more to add later but good night for now!
And I think infocracy is an interesting idea! kudos!

[cool]

Originally Posted by pinkhaireddreamboy

you're writing a book? what does the name mean btw...? is it just like democracy only instead of demo its info = information. lol

Yup.. will take me a while though. I have had this concept that the current and most respected philosophy on governing, ie, democracy is, although most agree is the best we have, but lacking still. (as pointed out some of the bad points of democracy).

Here's what Infocracy means:

I coined the word Infocracy because I think it's:

a) short and catchy and easy to remember
b) it includes the word 'Info' in it, and living in the age of information, it just makes sense as the whole philosophy is that governments should be run with the best available information and not merely approval from the majority.

BTW: Before you guys jump to conclusion that Infocracy is about the way we vote for leaders, it's NOT. That's just ONE resulting aspect of utilizing information as the main base for a goverment organization. Basically, if we adhere to infocratic principles (I have yet to work them out), we would have no choice but to work out processes that would conform to the best available information.

So, why did we already came up with the 'pre-qualified' candidates? and pre-qualified voters processes? It's because Information we have on democracy and how it's done today have shown that it's not the ideal way to get good people into office, and therefore it dictates that we change that!

definitely! i just meant if you tried to overthrow the US government or something and force infocracy on everyone.

Hahahha.. pinkhair, are you trying to turn me into a terrorist?? This is not about any active grassroot activity. This is just my philosophy which I am yet to work out all the kinks of it. I have the basic plan in place but need to discuss some of the issues and we're getting to scratch the surface of this idealogy already.

My basic philosophy is this 'if we already know something to be true, why are we still adhering to culture and outdated way of life?' We, as human, gifted by evolutionary chance to possess so much brain capacity, we should be evolving ourselves based on science and the pursuit of knowledge.

and as youve said, i know plently of people who have just voted for bush because of his religious affiliation.

Yes, basically if we follow Infocratic principles, the wrong candidates would never (hopefully) get thru the vetting process in the first place.

what do you mean by "50% of the points could be given by un-qualified voters"?

I am thinking that perhaps 50% of weight of the votes would come from pre-qualified voters (who are qualified in the field necessary), and another 50% from the general public. That way, we can also suave the public who may be too lazy to get themself qualified and then say that they are being discriminated against.

Here's a simple math:

Say if 10 people are pre-qualified to vote, and their are 100 citizens who are not qualified but demands to have the right to vote.

Then each of those 10 people would have 50% of the votes (perhaps each one would have 10 votes), and each of the 100 people would have 1 vote each, so each group totals about 50% of the weight of the votes.

Originally Posted by 13th_hr

Now if I'm understanding this right, infocracy is voting based on information best suited for the current time?

No, not exactly. Infocracy does not dictate the actual process, ie, voting for example. It's just the believe that a society should utilize the best available information of the time in whatever they do (and voting is one of the things our society do).

Let's take something else rather than voting as an another example:

Gun Control

In a Democracy, the gun-lobbyists are extremely powerful (because they form some of the richest gun manufacturers and the aristocrats), and they made sure the law is voted 'yay'.

In an Infocratic society, however, no matter how stong the gun lobbyists are, they would be asked simple questions such as:

- do a research on the pros and cons of letting the citizens own guns
- if the pros outweight the cons, then let them have it, if not they can't

so, no votes!! No majority wins. The BEST INFORMATION wins and dictates how we make laws.

I know the only way for infocracy to work is to have the voters well informed.

I want to stress that Infocracy is NOT about voters. It's about utilizing Available Information. In this case if we're talking about voting, then available research and information would let us to believe that having certain process or vetting in place before a voter can cast his vote would be best.

Again, even in democracy, it stresses that it'll only work best if voters are Informed (not just infocracy), but then how to go about it? It does not force the process of informing onto the public. In Infocracy, since we know un-informed voting does not work, we have NO CHOICE but to ENFORCE the informed voting procedures. I would say to put some of the burden onto the population, ie, the process would force the individual who wants to make a change to at least get himself informed first. Make sense? If it does, then it's infocratic, if it's not then we need to re-look at this particular process I outlined and if anyone can come up with a better one, then that's the infocratic one.

Most people (like me) wouldn't care for the 3 month course to be a qualified voter.

That's just an example. Remember, you may not be qualified to vote for the Minister of Roads and Constructions because you are not informed in that dept. but you may be able to vote for the Minister of Fashion?? See what I mean? There are qualified people in every field and if you're qualified in one particular field, it would mean that you're already very interested in that particular field and you would want to vote for anthing related to it, wouldn't you?

I would just not vote at all. People would think it's a waste of time and have things they would rather be doing. I know many people aren't into politics and would have a "screw that" attitude.

People with 'screw that' attitude shouldn't be voting anyways. It's the infocracy at play here, rooting out the non-serious people. But they can't then come around and say 'where's my vote?'.

Think about this for a moment, in almost everything else, other than the government, we are already utilizing the principles of Information. What if you can be voted into a university rather than prove that you're qualified? You'l have tons of dumb-a*** in school and lots of nerds who have no friends who are best qualified not getting into schools.. right?

To be honest, I would rather have a 10 qualified voters than 10,000 unqualified ones.

So how would you get people to take the course? Many people would feel they have the right to vote since they pay taxes and shouldn't have to take the course just to be able to vote. I mean, it's hard enough to get people to vote already.

You bring out the MOST IMPORTANT point I think here. This point is hard to wave away. People, no matter how dumb they are, would still demand that they are part of a 'smart process'. Because, let's face it, no one feels that they are dumb and un-informed, right.

And it may lead to public unrest and civil war if they feel that only the elite gets to say something.

To be honest, this is why Democracy was created in the first place, to suave the Majority. And it's still the most powerful the democrats philosophers have in terms of argument. How else do you make sure that the majority of the people are happy?

I think the way to get across this is to fine tune the Infocratic voting process which would HAVE to include the dummies and lazies and everyone. But we'll need to instill in them certain knowledge in our schools when they are young, so that they are not so dumb anyways when they grow up. So, in an infocratic society, it behooves the government to make sure that the lowest denominator would still have a good education.

I have yet to work out this part satisfactorily.. so, yes, this is an excellent point. Remember, infocracy is still all in my mind and lots of kinds needs to be worked out.

....I pondered this question (I tend to debate against myself lol) and thought that maybe it should be a mandatory course in high school. Since voting is 18 and you graduate at that age.

But you see, there is NO ONE course you take... because each candidate would be in charge of different things that requires different expertise. But for President or those kind of more 'widely scoped' work, then yes, most people should be included in the voting process if not all. But then we would have to curb the President's powers and reduce it to a figurehead. He can't start wars for instance. That way, most of the population would feel that they are part of the voting process, but the dumbs or the big groups can't influence how the government works or how laws are passed.

hmmm....I'll probably have more to add later but good night for now!
And I think infocracy is an interesting idea! kudos!

Hey, thanks for bringing up a challenging debate.

Remember guys, no matter how many holes you poke into my philosophy, I don't get angry (promise), hahaha.. it's just my idea and perspective and I want your opinion. I am a guy that's open to all knowledge, good or bad.. lol!

[cool]

Step 7

Once he laid out the plans (basically he's the project manager), then contracts are put out for bidding by private companies.

Step 8

Companies will then bid for the project (with their project plans). Again, a pool of qualified voters (from the public) will read those bids and select a winner. Note: these voters need to have minimum of degrees (far harder). But there'll be 10,000s of suitable candidates in each fields so each project would have 1000s of public voters and therefore there'll be no way for bribery or corruption. winner. Note: these voters need to have minimum of degrees (far harder). But there'll be 10,000s of suitable candidates in each fields so each project would have 1000s of public voters and therefore there'll be no way for bribery or corruption.

Since the Project Manager (the minister), can't possibly make money from any projects, there'll be no corruption and he'll only create the best plan he can think to benefit the people.

PinkHairedDreamBoy, you mentioned you didn't understand the above and I must admit, I ramble sometimes..

So, let's make this point clear by utilizing an exact example.

Now, we all agree that Corruption is the main source of in-efficiencies in ANY societies and probably the main source of EVIL that causes the greatest amount of un-necessary suffering in the population.

We will then need to understand how corruption works and utilizing the 'knowledge' gained by understanding how corruption works, it then behooves us to create or form processes that ensures that it minimizes corruption in the entire chain of command.

Remember, Infocracy means we MUST utilize knowledge when we have it and we MUST create new processes based on those knowledge to continue to progress and in this case, we MUST battle corruption.

The Steps above are ONE way i currently see that would almost totally eradicate corruption.

Let's take a real life example:

Mr. Energy is the minister of Energy
Mr. Energy came up with a plan to build 5 new power plants

Now, I don't know if you guys know this fact, but most corruption in high levels works this way: Think of a big project that involves millions of dollars, then assigned that project to our relatives, or people who have promised to give us a cut of the public's money in our offshore account, etc. Now, in most developing and 3rd world countries, they do it outright and in plain daylight, ie, they just assign the government projects to their own sons, daughters, uncles, cousins, etc, and if any public up-roar, they just throw them in jail and throw away the key. But in sophisticated countries like the US and Europe, they need to be more careful in their assignment of projects to people unrelated to them, but they'll have back-door chats on how they would benefit from so, and so company.

So, now, with my plan, Mr. Energy can only create the project, but he can't assign it to so and so company. The projects would be posted on an Energy Forum (publicly accessible). And say company A, B, C, D, E are wants to bid on it, they'll have to bid on the project in plain daylight in the public forum as well. And then the last and most crucial part is the selection of the winning bid. IT'll be the population at large (non-government tied individuals), who are experts in the project's