The thing is we need a whole bunch of great people for parlimentary work. But nobody can know all of them well enough to vote for them.
But if every voter was randomly assigned a limited collection of candidates some months ahead of the election, they could make a very well informed vote on those specific candidates.
If there are 100 million voters, 1000 parliament seats and 10,000 candidates then every voter could be assigned let's say 20 candidates and 4 votes to distribute among them.
With a 50% participation rate you'd get about 100,000 inspections of each candidate which should be more than enough.
The best part is that this system completely eliminates personality cults.
For a random system to work it would have to randomly appoint people for life or at least long enough terms that they can actually learn how to implement what they want.
>Randomly chosen
How long before that gets hijacked? Nothing is random and gaming random chance systems is a specialty of a whole group of industry con-artists.
As far as I know jury duty is by random selection, and it's one of the fundamental building blocks of our democracy, and in my opinion it's a well functioning one.
And as the joke goes, you’ll be judged by a jury of people who couldn’t get out of jury duty.
How can it be detected in our current system?
Maybe we could instead support a veto branch? Run it like jury duty where people get randomly chosen to go to DC for 1-4 years. Those people have to vote to decide if they veto a bill before it goes to the president for signature. Try and pass bad policy through that system… corporations would be pissed…