To follow the debate chain: positive, dwinblood (a post in positive comment section), positive,   dwinblood, positive, dwinblood, and finally positive which this post you are reading is a response to.

I did think Technocratic Democracy had some merit, but now I see you likely are not willing to take it as far as it would likely need to go.   From your most recent response it seems just some slight tweaks to what we currently have are all that you seem to think would be needed.  (I'm sure you'll correct me if I misunderstood)

... And it's pretty effective as it stands. Government regulation agencies (tax, betting etc...), at least in my experience, are pretty aggressive in executing their tasks, beyond the point of being thorough and nearing overkill. 

While this creates an unpleasant experience for the civilian - especially when they're wrongfully prosecuted - it does raise the price on corruption sufficiently that only well-connected agents will succeed in influencing audits. 

Just representatives that are quantitatively chosen based on the degree to which their interests are aligned with those of the pool of voters they're representing. And these representatives are chosen from a pool of  sufficiently educated/skilled to be considered for their position.

Representatives make the rules (I advocated a representative technocracy).

So what criteria are you going to use to elect someone?   As it currently is; such that the world and population are focused on what the person says?

That is the popular thing today.   People pay little attention to the actions of the person.   All they need do is say the right things, and people want to elect them.   Point out crimes, contradictions, and more and it does not matter, all that matters is what they said most recently.

Is what they say, what you are going to feed into your election algorithm?    What about people that have no actions to base them against and all you have is what they say?

This is the most corrupting aspect of human nature I am aware of...

You actually gave me a segue that is relevant to what I believe is likely a problem with not only our governments, but functionally any organization that remains in existence for very long.    It stems from Human Nature and an aspect you yourself hinted at.   Representation is at it's core.

I don't want that burden, I don't want to spend my time on admin, and John Smith can have a cut of my capital to handle that weight,.

Hell, I'll even let him skim a bit on top through corruption!

MOST of us would rather NOT be doing admin.   We have plenty of other things we like to do, whether it be reading a book, going to the movies, hiking, amateur auto racing, programming, gaming, dancing, music, etc.

So what type of people DO want to admin?   What motivates them?

Please excuse these simple graphics I made them to illustrate what I am getting at:

Let the above represent SEVEN groups of people who need representatives for some local position.   Most of them are like you and I.   They have other things to do and would rather have someone else handle it.

They manage to go through elections and some representatives are elected.    Some of these representatives are going to realize it interferes with what they would rather be doing and they are not likely to seek higher positions.   An election for the regional position comes up.

This process continues over time.   Ultimately, it is those who WISH for such positions of authority that will rise through the systems.   Such mechanisms favor them.   That does not mean they were the best for the job.  The most likely conclusion of this process over time is illustrated in the next image.

The Technocracy you propose would be pulling from stats on people who wished to lead.   You COULD do what some science fiction authors have done and propose analyzing people and DRAFTing people into the position, rather than choosing from those who want power.   Yet I don't believe that is what you are proposing.

So the ultimate conclusion of this is that those who want power, tend to get it.   Those who want power are rarely those most qualified for wielding that power.

What you indicate is a flaw with the voluntarism of Anarchism is actually seen as one of its strongest traits for proponents.    We do not seek other people to shoulder our responsibilities.   We believe far too much of that happens, and far too many people are sheltered from bad actions their representative makes by simply saying "I didn't do it!  My representative did."      We are willing to sacrifice a little leisure time and discomfort to the fact we must be more responsible for our actions.   Yes, we have to do more.    When we do something it is our decision, and not some figurehead we can hide behind.