On the other hand, the technocrats are beholden to actual elected officials, instead of the current situation where a group of random people selected by private companies coordinate their work by consensus without much formal structure and the members are beholden to nobody by their company boss.
Rule by consensus is basically democracy by whoever is motivated enough to show up. It seems to have an extremely good track record, especially compared with rule by central bureaucracy.
The exception is if the consensus is only among a small handful of large corporations that lack competition and then become the unaccountable technocrats. But in that case what you want from governments is not to take over as the malevolent bureaucracy, it's antitrust enforcement.
And those elected officials are beholden to the highest bidder. In the
current system, the people who make CA decisions acquired that power voluntarily and seem to have acted benevolently in the past, that's way more than you can say about government officials.
The current voluntary system is also very open, and anyone can get involved and participate to a much larger extent than people realistically can in an electoral democracy. To me, the voluntary system seems to be better and safer for everyone who doesn't have a very large amount of money to throw at elections.
