I would prefer a system where the candidates setup a hierarchy of experts and advisors. The experts then debate each other on their policy positions - both long

I would prefer a system where the candidates setup a hierarchy of experts and advisors. The experts then debate each other on their policy positions - both long live debates and by exchange of essays. Then, a third party sums up key position differences and the two parties get to revise until they are satisfied - basically a list of policy differences. Finally, every voter takes a test where the questions ask them to assign policy positions to a candidate - e.g. "Which candidate's team supports X". The top 20, 10, 50 whatever percent of votes are used and the rest are discarded. This system lets us know that the voters know who they are voting for. Oh, and that team of advisors and experts needs to be installed somehow in the cabinet. You wouldn't want a candidate to just get a team of persuasive people to get elected and then ignored.