This work proposes a foundational shift in administrative philosophy by moving beyond the traditional regulation-centered model and articulating a three-function framework for democratic governance: (1) the identification of regulatory failure through substantive negative feedback, (2) the systematic evaluation of benefits and burdens, and (3) the institutionalized creation and comparison of alternative policy options. Drawing on insights from control theory, political philosophy, and contemporary administrative practice, the paper demonstrates that democracy does not depend on universal participation or direct democratic procedures. Instead, it requires institutional structures that render administrative power corrigible. The core argument is that genuine accountability—defined as the obligation to evaluate alternatives, disclose decision criteria, and maintain conditional revisability—is the necessary condition for substantive negative feedback in modern administrative states. By integrating benefit evaluation and alternative creation into a unified theoretical model, this work provides a structural solution to long‑standing problems in regulatory governance, including ritualized consultation, opaque decision-making, and the absence of meaningful feedback loops. The result is a new administrative philosophy capable of restoring democratic control within complex, specialized, and large‑scale bureaucratic systems.