Perhaps, then, there needs to be an extra layer of indirection between the voter and the office-holder. For example, voters could elect people who they thought

Perhaps, then, there needs to be an extra layer of indirection between the voter and the office-holder. For example, voters could elect people who they thought were qualified to interview and test applicants for the roles that would hold day-to-day power. I suppose that sounds a bit like how an electoral college should/could work, or how a parliamentary system expresses confidence in a Prime Minister, but obviously I don't think those systems are perfect implementations of the principal I am aiming for. There are various types of "test" that could be used to filter applicants, such as IQ tests, polygraphs, general knowledge, psychological diagnosis, but each of those have a lot of scope for introducing false positives and negatives in the selection process, even before we consider the meta-gaming of candidates acting dishonestly and testers acting to bias the outcome. Maybe if recall elections were possible for all roles (with zero administrative cost, and 100% turnout rate) that would be enough to solve the "buyer's remorse" problem with electing someone whose ability to gain power is greater than their ability to exercise it wisely.