I want to thank you for thinking about it and taking the time. This is an entertaining thought experiment to get people to think about what representation/productivity they really get from the system.
As I said, the civil servants would only get to draw so many cards, and they don’t get to pick the replacement cards. The ‘power’ would actually lie in the hands of educators and media or community builders who inform the public citizens, vs. corporate and revolving door lobbyists. As for people not wanting to do it; well, nobody wants to pay taxes either, but they do. They also wouldn’t have to be in office for the same terms: that could be changed, I’m thinking it could simply be more like jury duty service (or a military draft..don’t get me started on my solution to medical costs). Besides, we have to change the system to eliminate a lot of the bloated micromanaging in Washington, anyway. Budgeting and leadership should not have to be as obfuscated and complex as it is. That’s just the way the lobbies have developed it to give every special interest some kind of anachronistic version of a kingdom. The vast majority of time spent by congress is on the phones raising money or going on TV and traveling, usually election-related. Eliminate the election process and you free up an enormous amount of their time, as well as removing the power of most of the money. Put the representatives in a secure compound where they can work in peace (with cameras on them, of course), and you eliminate the idiotic traffic problems of D.C.. Maryland would probably just wash away without all of those lawyers soaking up the rainstorms.
As for getting what you want through voting…. Ha ha ha ha! :) That’s a good one. First, the choices you end up with are already vetted by the moneyed/media interests, so you don’t actually get to choose what YOU want, but what you want out of the choices presented to you. Secondly, the point of “representation and leadership” is not to give you what you want (that’s what marketers are for: to tell you what you want and then convince you that you ‘chose’ to buy it: see “Coercion” by Douglass Rushkoff), but to lead by making choices in the best interests of everyone, not just those who vote or donate money to campaigns (think ‘church elders’ instead of car salesmen).
Alternatively from the concept of the Random Party, I think political surveys should be banned. We should be electing leaders who have skills, not surveys. Otherwise, what’s the point of having them in the first place? Why not just go to direct electronic voting for everything (Every town would evolve into identical streets, stores, churches and a Consumer Reports website to tell them what they should statistically vote for. Unfortunately, there are too many people who think that the mob rule is in their best interests, especially in a world manipulated by propagandists and extremists.
Yes, the voting system is a great idea. It needs changes, though. Ranked choices would be an order of magnitude better, and public financing of all campaigns would level the playing field if we could overturn Citizens United v. FEC. We should eliminate the Income Tax code, as that is the source of massive corrupting influences on both sides (election donations and special interest rules), as well as a Fear Sword wielded by propagandists and revenuers of all stripes. Why DO we tax people for being productive rather than for being consumptive, anyway?