Thank you for describing in another way something that has always bothered me: nobody can do everything, everyone has weaknesses - and yet we only have 1 class of vote. This can't work: we are not selecting on the basis of competency. We are tentatively selecting on the basis of possible association between a candidate and an opinion expressed by a clique to which the candidate belongs.
I like the idea of votes being cast on issues and candidates correspondingly declaring their positions on said issues: "elected" candidates would then be "best fit". Of course, this idea erodes the relevance of political parties, making me look a bit of a Communist! (or do Communists only have 1 party?)
Additionally, voting could be made even more relevant if votes were allowed to be transferred - not among candidates but among voters. If I can't expect to ever know enough about issue x to vote correctly on it, maybe I should be entitled to allow person y to vote on my behalf on issue x alone. This allows for people with irrational combinations of opinions (i.e. everybody) to nominate proxies who support conflicting issues (e.g. fair wage for poor workers vs. immigration): a computerised voting system would need to be able to detect such contradictions and alter their selections (being encouraged to consider the underlying issues in the process).
What idealism! Don't worry, I'm sure that this idea allows for corruption, still (just at "local" level, though - which is why it'll never happen ;-)