Who gets to decide who is "well prepared" and how? Do people vote on that? If so, you've just added a level of indirection, not really changed much.

Well, I'm not from the US. But I believe that someone that wants to run for any public office must prequalify with some minimum requirements, that could be age, educational background, good reputation history (if it was involved in any law penalties, tax records, etc.), something like that, people can choose what they believe it's necessary for a person to hold any office. They work for us. That I think is easy to do. It's like when someone nominates himself to be a juror: http://www.uscourts.gov/services-forms/jury-service/juror-qualifications

Then, when you choose a determined number of participants, the election by lottery takes place. The person/people who gets the position then exercises the mandate of the population who serves, he doesn't exercise power by itself. Of course, that only works if most people in a community/state/nation participate.

Restricting government from gaining too much power in the first place is the real difficulty and just because a policy is voted on by a majority doesn't mean it should be law. You still need protections for "natural rights" that cannot be overridden.

Cannot agree more. I think that constitutions have to prevent that majorities could impose policies on others that could damage the system and some honest individuals. But remember: If there's no electoral contests, there will not be necessary to have political parties, there would not be a large group who could impose their agenda because that doesn't guarantee that official supporting them would be elected.

Now, to get this really working, this is the key:

At the end of the day, for True Democracy, as you describe it, to be better than what we have now, more people have to be well informed and care about it. If more people cared about it and were well informed, what we have now would probably be better.