What's more egalitarian than voting?

Lottery election! Voting puts into office the person who is the best at getting elected. It really enforces a hierarchy of people who want political power.

A better way would be to choose politicians randomly. The House of Representatives is especially suited for this. What would be more representative than to just take someone off the street?

Here are the nuts-and-bolts: In every congressional district, one registered voter (preferably limited to males and Catholics, but that's another article) is randomly selected to represent his neighbors. The man can refuse the position, but if he accepts it, he is a congressman for the next two years. Every other November, instead of voting for candidates, we have a referendum on the man in office. If the population votes against him, he is removed and a new congressman is selected at random, the previous one being ineligible (in the unlikely chance his name is drawn twice in a row) until the next term.

Notice that the lottery is not between people who applied, or got signatures, or who were nominated. The genius of this system is to completely remove ambition from politics. It would also:

1: put congressmen into office who owe nothing to anyone.
2: truly represent the district. Statistically, over the long term, all views held in the district would be voiced in direct proportion to how many people think that way.
3: break down the two-party power structure. A lottery would encourage many third parties.
4: force citizens to pay attention. After all, they could be whisked off to Washington at any time.
5: most importantly, it would reduce the number of people who will say or do anything to wield power and oppress others from ruling in Washington.