Though I've advocated for more metrics-based accountability in the past and agree with the author on that level, I don't know that tying a profit incentive is n

Though I've advocated for more metrics-based accountability in the past and agree with the author on that level, I don't know that tying a profit incentive is necessarily a good thing. It encourages people to vote for which policy is more profitable, which may or may not equate to which policy is more effective. If the goal was, for example, to reduce crime rate, it would be more profitable for me to vote for the Sheriff who's slightly more likely to fail but simultaneously more likely to cook the books than the one who has a 50/50 shot of actually decreasing the crime rate. What if the policy in question is a rather difficult problem where all solutions are equally likely to fail? Would that discourage everyone to vote on that policy except for those who are already wealthy enough to make a risky investment? Stepping back further, this would likely discourage anyone who didn't have sufficient disposable income to vote, thus making policy more lopsided. If I lose my job, how do I vote on establishing/expanding a safety net when I have to worry about feeding my family? If I can't vote, does that effectively mean that welfare and similar programs will be voted out by those that have no use for it?