This is inferior to random selection because this still has the issue that the candidate could claim to hold certain positions, but once voted in, they may not follow through on any of them. The reality of our current democracy is that anyone who manages to even step onto the arena is likely already bought and paid for. There's a candidate with a prepared narrative to appeal to every kind of fool under the sun. With random selection, you'll get average people, their stated positions hardly matter because once all seats of congress and the senate have been filled with random people, their values will almost certainly reflect the true values of average citizens. That's how probability works.

With the current approach to voting; all the candidates you get to choose from have already been pre-screened for: 1. Thirst for power and 2. Alignment with the interests of big capital holders (who paid for their campaigns in order to get to this stage).

This is a horrible pre-screening process.

People in general don't have the time or inclination to properly study the important details of each an every issue, before voting on them.

That's why it makes sense to outsource the decision making to a group of people that are being paid to study these issues full-time.

Given some balanced (yes, there's a problem) expert advice, I think rando's might make better choices than career politicians focussed on extending their power. The rando's would just return to their old careers afterwards.