Lots to criticize here about the difference between theory and practice. But even in theory, he's still advocating democracy right, like a leader is randomly s

Lots to criticize here about the difference between theory and practice. But even in theory, he's still advocating democracy right, like a leader is randomly selected (we take it in turn to act as a sort of executive officer of the week) but the randomly selected leader is still enacting the will of the population (each decision of that officer must be ratified by a simple majority...) So isn't it just transfering the problem from presidential elections etc to plebiscites? Or is he advocating we randomly select a dictator? And who actually makes policy proposals and how does that process become less partisan? I don't think this is a viable solution to anything. Liberal democracy is about being able to turf the incumbents, the rest is just people jockeying for a system that would short term favor their preferences.