Just for demonstration purposes: imagine we get rid of voting alltogether.
Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions.
This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task.
I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism
You can't parachute people into government without explaining to them how government works. Representatives don't just vote on legislation, they have to propose it and draft it. Someone has to understand and explain how all of that functions.
The people doing the drafting, suggesting, and explaining won't have term limits and will have the real power. They'll also be the ones targeted by lobbyists.
You'll end up with is a floor show with the real decisions being made behind the scenes by people who are mostly not directly accountable.
Not unlike what we have now. Different, possibly better in some ways, and possibly worse in others.
A randomly assigned legislature sounds like a recipe to create an unaccountable bureaucracy of staffers and advisors 'guiding' the forced citizen through what must be done / can't be done legislatively. This is where the real power would lie - and frankly we are kind of there today. Most congresscritters spend 45% of their time campaigning, 45% of their time fundraising and 10% of their time looking damn cute. Staffers, lobbyists and think-tanks do most of the legislative work.
In my country, we have some kind of "popular tribunals" (i.e. tribunals where nobody is a professional outside of the lawyers) for trade disputes (although there are professional tribunals for appeals).
My sample is anecdotal at best, but the single instance in which I ended up in a position to witness a judgement and its rationale, the result was... laughably wrong. It was quickly overruled in appeal by the judges who actually know the law.
So... I'm not optimistic. Perhaps some AI could help, I guess? But that comes with lots of risks, too.
Instead, a random representative sample of 1000 people is chosen from the population, for some congress, for a year. They rule during that time. Some rules cannot be overruled, like the 1 year limit, no way to game that. Additionally, all communication of the chosen ones must be recorded and public, without exceptions.
This basically eliminates corruption or the rise of a „ruling class“, and lobbyism has a much harder task.
I would also argue that this will result in much better overall decisions - they might lack some initial knowledge but that is more than offset by missing corruption and cronyism