Random selection is necessary to create stable meritocratic institutions

This perspective under-appreciates the role of a leader's charisma when it comes to attracting staff that will actually execute the ideas of that leader.

Anyone who has worked in a presidential administration (or a congressional office) can tell you that a leader is effective if and only if they have staff that believes in their message and agenda, and that is willing and able to execute on that agenda.

The practical reality here is that charisma isn't just a way of gaming the "getting elected" part of the job, it's also a requirement to be effective at the job.

Article suffers a bit from the common hackernews intellectual bias.

I think you didn't get to the part of how it would work in practice. It's not that the leader is selected randomly, it is that the people that select positions are randomly chosen. Also, your criticism only is valid if everyone through that being able to sell an idea is critical for the leader. The leader role is to manage the resources to accomplish the goal of the team, what the goal of the team is, is up to the team to decide.

Yes, especially as prime minister or president, you need to be the face of the country. For everyone: not just your party. And while listening to the public is an important part of the job, sometimes you also need to explain things to the public. Same with ministers, to a slightly lesser degree.

I feel one downside of a district-based system like in the US is that it's harder to build up a healthy mix of representatives, where some are more on the charismatic side and others more on the technical "policy wonk" side. Everyone needs to win their own elections, so it's biased too much towards the charismatic side.