Democracy is somewhat like a rough approximation of a market in the sense that people are "buying with votes" what they expect to be the best product/service. But a key difference is that it's a huge collective buy of a monopoly or near-monopoly. Are or were there "attempts" to make public administration more market-like in the sense of having political parties acting more like companies from which one can request public services through vouchers? Imagine that there were "Republican" and "Democrat"-run public schools in the same cities and states at the same time, rather each parting running them all in N-year long terms, and one could then put their children in the public school of their choice through vouchers. Thus being able to sort of "switch" the public administration in a way that wouldn't be fundamentally different from switching between private schools. Without being "locked" in the term length, and perhaps, because of that, making the administrative parties put more effort into providing the best public service, without the usual state/city/country-level near-monopoly. Perhaps schools aren't the best "example" as perhaps it would be better dealt with a more conventional voucher system, less/no need of parties being involved hands on on the school administration, I guess. But perhaps the same basic concept could be expanded in a way that political parties compete concurrently within the same political territory in a more market-like system, but yet with a redistributive voucher system, rather than votes, or plain anarcho-capitalism.