@Heidentweet Some important context here is that what I am describing is a more 'palatable' political model, in the sense that it is (or more accurately, *seems*) closer to what we already have - many of the details are the way they are because of that.

For example, the executive branch being elected is to pre-emptively address concerns of things getting messed up in implementation through bias; with a sufficiently functional policymaking system, this *should* not be necessary, but it is there as a 'defense in depth' type thing.

And to clarify, with 'policymaking' I don't necessarily mean the "figuring out the details of implementation" (that would be the implementation part), but rather the "what should the policy work towards, what are our goals", etc., which is currently determined by elected politicians. That's the part that would be done by a random selection.

In a healthier society, "involving the people who it affects" would be optimal - but it is extremely difficult to make happen in a society like we have that is already having severe problems with its political systems, because often it's not entirely clear upfront who *are* the people it affects, and bringing in people down the road requires an ability to anticipate quickly at scale, which we currently do not have.

Meanwhile, experiments with binding(!) citizen panels in many places have produced very positive results, where the more obscure concerns were also taken into account, because people approached the task as a job rather than as a political battle (after all, there was no re-election to fight over).

There do need to be structures in place so that those affected *can* be consulted effectively, and so that there are reliable sources of information to work from, but given these results, I'm not especially concerned about specific needs getting overlooked due to the people involved.

All in all, I think that in the society we have today, it's much easier to implement "randomly-selected committee consults whichever demographic becomes relevant/affected" than "committee changes over time as it becomes clear who is affected", just because of the predictability that it provides for the process.

Doesn't mean there shouldn't be a long-term effort to improve it further, of course - but again, what I'm describing here is a palatable approach, hopefully the first step on the way to an optimal model, but not the last one.