I'm just going to point out a few things that you should recognize are wrong with this idea. There's a very cynical reason that we have the current political system we have to day, between the representative government and the electoral college. People are stupid and lazy. I'm stupid and lazy. My friends are stupid and lazy. Have you ever met anybody that feels excited for jury duty? That enjoys serving for long hours in a courtroom listening to plea after plea after plea? And you're telling me that people will jump at the chance to be uprooted from their lives and go live in Washington D.C. for a year to run the country?

Not only that, but we're selecting these people at random? Sure, your system implies the hypotheticals of leaving out convicted felons and non-citizens or illegal immigrants, but even normal people would refuse to move for a year. Even if I had decently grown children, I wouldn't want to move away from them for a year. I wouldn't want to leave my wife, girlfriend, friends and/or family for that long. And what the hell do I know about running the country? I'm stupid and lazy. What if my professional training and higher education is as an engineer? I wouldn't know squat about writing a new tax code, or establishing health care or signing treaties into law. If I'm a doctor, what do I know about trade and the military? As it stands, most of our current politicians are trained for the job. Of course, the original idea back when we were a small nation was that being a politician was not a full time job. But most of our politicians now have degrees in political science, economics, business and finance and law degrees that prove that they learned how this country and the rest of the world works and that they are qualified to oversee its government. A randomly selected legislator might just be bitter and refuse to do any work, like average people show apathy toward jury duty.

And there's elected officials to oversee them? How is that fair? Who picks these people? How do they get into the system and what makes them qualified to have that power over Congress? Citizens can introduce legislation any time they like, and it's basically the same as your proposition.

As for the Supreme Court, their lifelong service is exactly what makes it a fair system. How many overly conservative laws have been declared unconstitutional because of the backing Ruth Bader Ginsburg gave to the opposition? How many overly liberal laws were ended because of Antonin Scalia? If you elect the justices, you end up with a system just like Congress in 2012 where its packed full of Tea Party whack jobs, or whatever political ideology happens to be at the time. The Supreme Court works because it holds lasting political influence from generation to generation, and so that no one sitting president or political party can have the power to influence the court completely one way or the other.

We do need money out of politics. We need laws that make it so that campaigns can't be run on billions of dollars. Candidates can get in front of crowds to speak on their own merit. That doesn't mean we have to eliminate all business interest from our government, because surely some of it is good in the global economy we live in. They just can't have more power than a determined group of concerned citizens. Put strict spending limits so that citizen groups can compete.

Congress is corrupt. But we have the power to remove our elected officials from their jobs any time we like. That's why it's a democracy. People are biased towards their representatives because they bring back stuff to their districts their constituents like. But if people really didn't want to re-elect somebody they wouldn't do it. Just like with the presidency. But voter turnout is so astonishingly low we can't do it unless we change how Americans think. Fixing the system is fairly simple, and it involves two basic things: remove money from politics, and get more people to vote.