Representative Democracy, which is what we are talking about, has always been broken and can't be fixed. It's just that there isn't an obviously better solution. This is just tinkering.

the requirement is to fix governance not 'fix democracy'.

Political systems are (theoretically) there to serve the people, if they stop doing so we need to iterate on the system or replace it with something else. It's like trying to 'fix Visual Basic'. No, what is the problem you are trying to fix with VB, if VB is no longer the right language, swap it out for something else.

I don't know. If people only want even numbers, why do they insist on using a system that can also produce odd numbers… and pretend that it needs fixing when the output is "wrong"? At some point, it might be simpler and more effective to just own your aversion to odd numbers and switch to a system that always produces even numbers, "odd" ones be damned.

- In some ways, the proportion of notables (5%) is comparable to the membership of the Communist Party of China compared to the population of China. Actually makes me optimistic.

- I keep seeing this author advocate for long terms and staggered elections. I understand, a little, why that makes sense in a system where the vote is decided by low-information voters, although I feel it still makes the government far too oligarchical and too unresponsive to changing conditions - voters should not have to wait a decade to change a government. In a system with notables who actually pay attention to politics, protecting the politicians makes no sense at all - elections should be frequent, since the notables should know enough to semi-responsibly choose politicians. (Maybe 6-12 months - 1 month is still a short enough time for a "current thing" to dominate Twitter and throw out politicians for silly reasons, and I'm assuming the notables would in effect be Twitter power users.)