One of the frustrations many of us have about today’s elections is that we’re essentially taking part in a system that hasn’t changed in decades even though it needs to. We might be able to influence who our councillors are – maybe – but everything else stays the same: the number of councils, the way we’re taxed, and who is really in charge.

So, in an effort to see what could be different, I’ve been speaking to a few people with ideas: politicians, campaigners and academics who think the current system isn’t working. And, having thought about what they told me, I think there are a few ways our system of local government could be improved. It has to be better than what we have now, doesn’t it?

One: We need to ditch the idea of a “postcode lottery”

There’s often talk about how awful it is that the service in such-and-such a council area is different from the service in such-and-such a council area. There’s even a phrase for it: the “postcode lottery”. But should that really be a thing?

The problem is that trying to “fix” the so-called postcode lottery effectively means undermining council autonomy. Alison Payne, research director of Reform Scotland, puts it this way: the postcode lottery is simply that one council has chosen to do something differently to another, and that’s perfectly fair because we elect them and if we don’t like it, we can vote them out. In other words: difference is good – ditch the lottery.

Two: We need a Barnett formula for councils

This is a great idea. Imagine if Boris Johnson told the Scottish Government “you can have your Barnett consequentials but you’ve got to spend it on my Tory priorities” – there would be uproar. But that’s essentially what the Scottish Government does with councils – it gives them money but increasingly tells them how they have to spend it.

The answer, according to the former MSP Andy Wightman, is a kind of Barnett formula for councils. The great benefit of such a scheme, he told me, is that council budgets would be predictable and couldn’t be changed for political reasons. Every time the Scottish Government got a budget boost, it would have to pass on a certain proportion to local authorities no-strings-attached. The Government will hate it. I love it.

Three: We need different types of local authorities

There are lots of people who think they have the answer to this one. Why do we have so many councils, they say – three in Ayrshire for example. Merge them! Save money! Make it simpler! On the face of it, I get that argument.

But I’ve also been speaking to Willie Sullivan, who’s the senior director of the Electoral Reform Society Scotland, and he has a pretty convincing case for the opposite solution: more councils. He believes that micro-councils linked to every village, council or community would help ensure that the power really does lie with the people.

The answer is to do both: have fewer councils in certain areas (Greater Glasgow for example) but within that have many more smaller councils to improve local autonomy, with the aim of making them more accountable.

Four: We need elected mayors

I know some people worry about this idea – would it for example hand too much power to a small number of individuals? But the idea is gathering support, including from the likes of James Mitchell, professor of public policy at Edinburgh University, who believes mayors could help to challenge an overbearing central government.

There are others who also worry that mayors may not be quite a Scottish idea but Professor Mitchell was pretty blunt about that kind of criticism. What’s wrong with elected mayors being an English idea, he said – in fact, he told me that devolution will show its true maturity when it adopts an English idea because it’s the right thing to do.

So there you are. Four ideas to make things better, but they get to the heart of the bigger problem I think. Susan Aitken, the leader of Glasgow Council, says that the whole point of local government is councils get to do what suits them locally. So let’s create a system that actually facilitates that. Let’s make it work better. Let’s make it really local. And maybe next time, our votes will feel a whole lot more satisfactory.

Our columns are a platform for writers to express their opinions. They do not necessarily represent the views of The Herald.