>if, say, we randomly selected or representatives from a
>pool of qualified candidates, and redirect all the resources and
>energies now consuked by elections to building an institution of
>no-confidence vote that would allow sacking or suspending any
>representative at any time, if enough people cast their no-confidence
>vote.
Couldn't do any worse by using a lottery for selecting leaders. It works for selecting juries reasonably well. However I wonder if the system of removing incompetent leaders that you suggest might not see the advantages lost? Perhaps it would be more productive to just have a system for disallowing the bad *decisions* they make? This would be a form of "blocking" or "veto" which advocates of consensus might see as compromising with their aspirations.
After all, removing one set of incompetent leaders and replacing them with others, probably just as incompetent, doesn't stop the fundamental problem.
The greatest difficulty I see is coming to a consensus of what would be the prerequisite qualifications for getting your ticket in the lottery. No qualifications are necessary for high office, such as head of state of course. This has been demonstrated by history. But some positions might require technical expertise.
Bill Bartlett Bracknell Tas