New Electoral System

This is something I made up a while back and I would like some constructive criticism or suggestions of improvement.
 
I'm all for democracy except for the electoral aspect of it. It's based on competition (parties) and manipulation (convincing voters) and it makes no sense when the process is supposed to represent an ideology based on diplomacy and co-operation.
 
So this is what I'm proposing :
 
You have a committee consisting of, let's say, 10-20 members. Each member must have at least three PHD's with at least one PHD being in one of the following areas; law, politics (any field), physics, medicine, philosophy, economics, education (incomplete list).
 
But first the members to be have to go through a special education where they get to study the political history of all successful (economically/socially) countries. Or at least they have  to choose ten nations to study. So they'll study their history, their decisions, their policies and the result of them all.
 
Also these committee members have to prove they're ideology free. Which is pretty common amongst highly educated people anyway.
 
This electoral committee would have three committees supervising them to make sure they keep their work subjective. Any larger transactions made by the electoral members will be traced back to see where the money came from to make sure there's no corruption or bribery in the background.
 
When it's election time each party will have to meet this committee behind closed doors. No journalists or others party members or anyone who doesn't belong there. During this event any and all questions are allowed and must be answered.
 
It's very common amongst politicians that they keep talking on and on and on until time runs out without actually saying anything. Other times they'll give an answer in an overly convoluted manner. They've answered the question but you have to analyze their response to see what they actually mean.
 
But in front of this committee they have to give straight and elaborate answers. "How are you going to create more jobs?", "What are your plans for the defense?", "Are you going to raise or lower taxes, why and how are you going to deal with the increased/lowered revenue from taxes?", "Are you going to reform our educational system and how?". You get the picture. If they don't give proper answers explaining their plans then they're only harming their own chances of getting the job.
 
This committee doesn't have to choose one party to receive all the power. Rather they will give the positions to persons rather than parties. Party one is in charge of education, defense and scientific research. Party two has the responsibility of foreign relations and infrastructure, party three has health and social programs. But this wouldn't mean the entire parties are put in charge of these fields, only chosen party members who are already working with these issues.
 
But the committee has to chose a President/Prime minister/State minister (smaller countries) from one party and this will the be prime position. Whatever party leader becomes the presidents receives veto rights, executive actions and executives orders. The vice president has to be from the same party. Or maybe they don't elect the President, instead the leader of a party becomes President by default when his/her party gets a majority of positions in the government.
 
So this committee pretty much has to build a government.
 
The citizens of the nation still get to vote in local elections. City, county, municipality and state.
 
Citizens can vote on laws and policies. It is then their state representative's mission to bring what they've voted on to a voting amongst the representatives from every state (or county/municipality depending the country). If it passes then the person elected in the field most relevant to the law/policy to try and make it work in practice (tweaks allowed) and then bring it to a voting amongst the parties for it to officially pass.
 
So the people still get to vote and make their voices heard.
 
In today's democracy you have parties struggling to convince the people to vote for them.
Many of the voters choose a party depending on their personal opinions, ideologies, religion, ethnicity or history. This party may not have the most suitable politicians to lead the country.
 
Not to mention the fact that most voters don't have the appropriate education or experience to make a responsible choice.
 
The politician use destructive tactics to gain votes like lying, advertising, smearing their opponents, spending tons of money etc.
 
When one party says something like "we're going to lower the taxes" they don't have explain how their going to do so. And this forces the next party to make the same promise because they could lose support if they don't. Even if none of the parties have any intention to lower taxes.
 
Most people would say we want lower taxes. The committee would ask can we afford to lower taxes.
 
And that's my thesis. What do you guys think?

 

 
"I'm all for democracy except for the electoral aspect...". Are you arguing against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality and justice for all?
 
 

 
Yeah, lol, I think I meant independent from organized parties. But now that I think about it I don't have any proof of that either so I withdraw the point.

 

 
Already answered the why in the original post.

 

 
You already made that point once before I answered it. I'm for democracy except for the electoral (or political) aspect of it. I'm not against freedom of speech, freedom of religion, equality, education, justice etc. All of which are important parts of the democratic culture.
 
You're looking at it from an American perspective. But imagine if every state in the U.S. was its own country with its own government, wouldn't this electoral system work in that case?
 
The idea is to put the power of electing officials in the hands of people who are educated and experienced in that field. People who would look at it from a different perspective than the general populous who will vote for whomever they have the most in common with.
 
I understand where you're coming from about each individual being their own master but that's a gross over simplification of the roll politics play in society.
 
If we use cannabis as an example, even if a politician in a democratic society wants to legalize it they won't make their opinions heard out of fear of having their supporters turn their backs on them. But without the layman voters you don't have to fear such things.
 
A committee that works from a base of objectivity, logic and research would probably see it in a different manner. Instead of "ban it to protect the kids" they might say "legalize it for freedom, demand and economy".
 
But you do have a point, the American constitution forbids the government from passing laws that apply to all states by default. But that's a story for a different day.
 
 

 
Same to you.
 
Did either of you read the whole post? I'm proposing a change in the electoral system but not the other aspects of democracy. The definition of democracy is one thing but there's a modern implication to it.

 

 
That is EXACTLY the thing I'm proposing a change in. Read further than the first paragraph. I'm for the freedom aspects of democracy not the electoral aspect of it.