It is a bad idea to delegate authority over oneself and one's property to anyone else, especially via lottery, unless said delegated authority can be unilaterally and unconditionally revoked at any time with no retributive consequences.

You go so far as to advocate decentralization, but continue to advocate a centralized albeit "democratic" state. This is problematic. As you say, such a state is only achievable when everyone participates. More importantly, it is only successful and respectful of human rights and dignities if everyone agrees. If an "elected via lottery" leader proposes a policy and the majority of the population agrees, the minority must either unwillingly submit or be expelled for there to be true consensus. This is tantamount to rule by the mob.

All forms of human governance that exist today as functioning systems are based on the principle of coercive collectivism and are to be rejected as fundamentally opposed to the individual's inalienable (pre-political) right to self-determination and self-ownership. Strict adherence to the non-aggression principle is the only just and ultimately rational approach to determining a system of governance.

In a True Democracy, representatives only fill a position, they don't exercise power. They get elected by lottery to fill a position, and they have to be accountable to the population. They propose policies, but the people has to choose if they want to exercise them or not. They cannot impose them, because they have no power as they were not chosen by the people.

True Democracy is achievable when everyone participates.

My suspicion that what you are looking for is Voluntaryism was only strengthened after reading your contribution above.

Great contribution and very thought-provoking!