Another Aeon article -- the best article I've read in the past decade -- explores the notion of random choice also: " How to choose? When your reasons are worse than useless, sometimes the most rational choice is a random stab in the dark "
https://aeon.co/essays/if-you-can-t-choose-wisely-choose-ran...
(I'd also submitted that, I think it's much the better essay.)
A key element is that if you elect by lot, as the Greeks did, voting is not a deterministic process. That is, the candidate(s) with more votes are more likely to win, but only on a probabalistic basis. Athens didn't count votes, it drew lots (or ballotta -- small clay balls with a candidate's name written on it). The candidate pool itself was qualified (and exclusionary, patriarchal, and discriminatory, yes), but given that 10-20% of the population were potential candidates, and the ruling cohort might be entirely different in the near future, getting along with whomever was, or was not, in power was good career- (and life-) extending move.
This in addition to bias, manipulation, and other problem elimination.
I've got issues with some of the suggestions here. The idea, for example of electing domain-specific single-issue legislatures, might tend to create other forms of ossified structures (think of domain specialisation, academic specialisation, and the like). Having generalist legislatures can be a very good thing.
But that's a detail. The notion of sortition should get more play.
