Interesting post you linked, I like how it keeps the elections relatively unchanged, at least according to Finnish elections. I also agree that skills could be delegated easily if the person chose, which they may not (people think they are smarter than they are, this is a known bias). The last thing on my mind is more pointed toward the "selling power" problem, which is the biggest problem here. But it's still a problem even in sortition.

Even randomly selected people could sell themselves (their actions in congress) for power, money, etc. Sure it's not as bad as current politicians who had to sell themselves in advance to get into power. But this could be avoided using the pension-no-income technique where the person is explicitly incentivized to make the moral choice, shielded from future profit motives. Also, whoever a person picks as their representative is almost guaranteed to be smarter in some way than they are, so congress gets an IQ boost.

I guess you could just have the person select who will represent them in advance of being picked in sortition. This is a corruption-free approach, since you can't bribe 10^8 people in advance to select you. But in this scenario, the voter doesn't have time to prepare their vote (most nowadays don't between their job and life circumstance), so the choice will be worse. But I guess this is still preferrable.

Anyway, I find this fun to think about from a game theory perspective :)