Does it really, though? Once the commerce of selling hype becomes the determining factor, there is only one result: you end up with talking heads that create hype in order to sell cars and beer on the news ‘product’ channels. Sure, we could end up with a few random nutjobs, but that’s better than two parties completely filled with elitist bubble-locked nutjobs. https://getpocket.com/explore/item/people-with-extreme-political-views-have-trouble-thinking-about-their-own-thinking
The beauty of the random selection process is that you can select another one at any time with little cost (printing new business cards + a bus ticket). It’s like playing poker: just draw some number of cards and discard the others. Who gets to decide when to draw a new card? My first suggestion would be experienced civil servants who are paid to know the laws and the available intelligence, not people paid to sell beer (advertisers and campaign managers). They wouldn’t get to select a particular replacement, just reject known threats; and frankly, I think there would be a lot fewer threatening people if everyone had the same chance to have a say, and politicians weren’t getting prompted by advertisers/donors to make a spectacle of themselves.
The biggest problem with the current system is the way that we accept a pseudo-aristocracy of lawyers and car salesmen/pickle vendors as being “smarter” because they have the money to put their face in front of us or to go to college. Along with that system, we somehow accept that morality requires a blind faith religious bent to it, when the basic Truth is that churches are simply a business model based on guilt, fear and delusion. Greta Thunberg has shown us that the combination of these two systems is so amoral that its patriarchal sycophants can’t accept the straightforward perspective of a teenager as a resource instead of a threat.