Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

I like the concept of “liquid democracy” —- it’s direct democracy, but you can select somebody to act as your proxy so you don’t need to stay up to date on everything. But you can revoke proxy status at any time or for any particular issue if you want to override them.

No idea how it could active implemented, but it seems like a great compromise between the individual freedom of direct democracy and the labor-saving of representational democracy

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquid_democracy

>Voters in a liquid democracy have the right to vote directly on all policy issues à la direct democracy; voters also have the option to delegate their votes to someone who will vote on their behalf à la representative democracy.[2] Any individual may be delegated votes (those delegated votes are termed "proxies") and these proxies may in turn delegate their vote as well as any votes they have been delegated by others resulting in "metadelegation".[3]

How this solve anything? I might choose a expert representative in matters I don't have a clue, like health policy. But the morons that do "their own research" will see themselves fit to vote because in their minds they know better. So what gives?

well, right now all those single-issue morons band together to elect a moron that gets the power to vote on every issue.

when you have a high proportion of morons, there's not much you can do.