I'm not sure I follow your argument. You're basically saying that we need professional politicians, because if we didn't have professionals, then people wouldn't know what to do - they'd have to actually study the problem, look at the history, figure out the data, and then propose a solution. All the while knowing that even with the best intentions, stuff can and will go tits up. Yea, wow, that sounds like a terrible approach. Instead we should get people who just pretend to know the answers!
a) The easy option ..
The easy option is to do nothing. The people will see this, and will vote to not approve what they've done. Next sortition takes a crack at it.
b) take the corruption option
Quid pro Quo. How are they going to pass something to benefit a special interest, if it requires the people to approve it? You're also forgetting that if we demand complete transparency, then this sort of corruption would be trivial to catch. But let's say we have an organization plying the sortition to propose certain laws. In the end, it comes down to the people.
c) Take the idiot option
Ah, rule of 3. Poorly thought-out replies to comments always sound better if you have 3 points to counteract, rather than 2.
As for the performance bonus, the bonus I propose would be based on whether or not the citizenry approved of the work that they did. So, let's say we demand each sortition submit proposals for laws. Each law must be explained in plain language. Each must have a counter argument. Each must describe the expected costs (minimum and maximum), externalities, and possible situations that could arise. If they do a good job of that, then the public could approve them. The citizenry could even be given a vote on each particular law. The bonus isn't based on whether or not the laws performed well, but whether or not the sortition worked in a manner to accurately represent the will of the people, and embody freedom and liberty for all (persons. Not special interest groups).
Because basically what you're saying is that the current system seems to be working well enough, and we shouldn't risk doing something else. Nonsense. I'm not proposing this happen from the top down. I think if you applied this to a city or town, and then let it go from there, we could see how it works, and smooth things out. There's a number of other things that I think we could do to make this work - mainly, these rules should apply to any group capable of committing fuckery (ie not just governments, but corporations, unions, charities, etc should all be required to be completely and utterly transparent. Zero privacy for groups, because morality seems to be that much more of an issue when we're dealing with groups of people).
The key, fundamental thing about human nature is our wanton capability to commit fuckery. To lie, to be embarrassed when we make a mistake, to try and cover it up, to try and get things just a little bit more going our way, to think that we've come up with an ideal solution and that if only we were in charge, we'd have it all figured out. I think that sums up human nature quite a bit. If we demand complete transparency, we could do our best to expose fuckery. If we don't let people vie for power, the odds of getting some psychopath running the thing are quite low.
I appreciate your comment. I appreciate that you took the time to read it. I appreciate the laugh as well - honest player politicians. How many of those are there in the entire US congress? Maybe 2 out of over 500?