Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. We need to set up a "starting stage for people to enter the system", such as passing an exam to become a civil servant. Assuming that the system stipulates that after working for 2 years, they have the right to sign up to compete for a small leadership position. During this period, they take tasks and count points just like playing a game. When the competition cycle is over, the candidates for promotion are determined based on the points, until he becomes the leader of a county government. From then on, he can compete among counties. If he wins the inter-county competition, he can be promoted to lead a city. If he wins the inter-city competition, he can lead a province. In this way, a national leadership team is determined step by step.

This sounds like anarchy or utter gridlock lock.

It is not anarchy, but the government is explicitly granted only the "power to execute the purpose". The people have the power to make the purpose decision, the government is responsible for executing the purpose decision, and then determines the candidates for promotion based on the execution results.

That may be wishful thinking.

This is not wishful thinking, but has a basis.
1. From the fact that "the existing government functions are very limited and their functions have not expanded infinitely", it can be seen that the types of public demands for administration are very limited. 2. In the case that some public demands have not been clearly classified, the "government satisfaction" indicator itself has the function of replacing "others", that is, as long as the "government satisfaction" indicator exists, the classification list is complete.

So are you saying we would still elect legislators? ……the legislative field is no different than a department in the administrative state.

Legislation can be roughly divided into two levels: the first level is to strictly prove general behavioral conclusions based on several behavioral axioms that are consistent with the facts, and these conclusions will constitute the constitution. From a normative perspective, this is the only reasonable way to produce a constitution. The establishment of these conclusions has nothing to do with the specific ideas formed by people at a certain time and place, so there is no need for people to vote. The rationality of the conclusions depends only on whether the axioms themselves are consistent with the facts and whether the argumentation process violates logical requirements.
The reason I say this is that I can strictly prove all the main conclusions that constitute the constitution based on 5 behavioral axioms, and all the arguments can pass the inspection of several AIs. AI said that the rigor of my arguments is comparable to mathematical proofs and gave them all five-star ratings. I am also writing a paper on this aspect.
The aforementioned normative claim about the way the regime is produced is itself derived from several of the conclusions that constitute the constitution. In fact, from the conclusion of my argument, the essence of democracy means that "land ownership should belong to the people equally", and it is presumed that "citizens have equal rights to dispose of land", so what citizens need to make is "land disposal decision", the essence of which is "deciding which public demands to achieve with land resources and their derived benefits", and what the government obtains is "land management rights", and it can be clearly proved from the behavioral axiom that "if A realizes the maximum benefits of land management, then the land management rights must be granted to A".

The second level of legislation is the process of classifying various specific behaviors into the above general conclusions, so as to establish specific laws and regulations. This level is still about argumentation in general, but this level may cause controversy, and I have not figured it out yet.

Yes, people without experience in governing cannot directly compete for national leadership positions. — panwei

We usually start political careers by running for town or city council in a municipality where the candidate is known personally or at least by reputation among their fellow citizens.
With exams, presumably preceded by courses, and assigned tasks and counting points, you're complicating the process even more; creating a bureaucracy of such enormous breadth and range, it will gobble up the national operating budget even before embarking on a single project demanded by the population. Moreover, you'd be regressing to the ancient imperial civil service - except that, in ancient China, public servants were required to adhere to rigid traditional procedures; they didn't need to adapt to changing conditions or be responsive to the people.
Anyway, who'd want to jump through all those loops, just to be under constant critical scrutiny by people who are not themselves faced with the challenges - and, indeed, may well present impediments to the performance they judge.

I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, because it contains the logic of suppressing the budget. For example, if I am promoted to county magistrate, I will be the general responsible person of the county government. If the county government has a large budget for evaluating the promotion standards of internal personnel, then the county government will not have enough budget to promote other public demands, and I will fail in the competition. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. The internal personnel of the county government are responsible to me, and I am responsible for the standards set by the people.

I don't know why you think the budget will be so large, — panwei

I don't think the budget will be larger; I think you're using it up on unproductive programs. You hire a bunch of academics to set standards and make up questionnaires, then you hire a bunch of clerical personnel to collect and tally the results of the questionnaires, more people to list the citizens who need to be notified, distribute, collect and mark the periodic report cards, and now a bunch more people to devise a curriculum, teach courses in administration, test the candidates, then keep track of their performance and award points. All of these new employees will need office space and computers, heating and light, bathrooms and lunchrooms. Then you hire people to conduct the election of qualified candidates. This is all before anyone gets elected or promoted to anything at all. That will leave the elected officials unable to do anything but suppress projects, because there's no money left.
Your plan is far, far too heavy on surplus bureaucracy.

I will suppress its budget. I have the right to decide how to assign tasks within the county government and how to set points. In order to avoid failure, I will suppress its budget. — panwei

That I think may be too big a job for one person - even for a kung fu panda. You suppress the budget for public works, no public works get done. There will be no workers to assign tasks to and no report card, because nobody put "Raise my taxes" as top priority on their questionnaire, and you've used up all the money, so can't pay salaries.

Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system.
Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands?
Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. Various statistical work has been going on, but there is no clear standard based on the people's decision and incorporated into the system.
Most of what you think of as budgets or expenses have always existed; this system simply reorganizes the logic behind how they work.

Universities have been conducting research in political science, statistics, etc. for a long time. Whether this system exists or not, the relevant inputs have always existed. This system only gives them a research direction and incorporates existing research results into the system. — panwei

I'm sure it will helpful to know what people wanted 20 years ago! Universities can't conduct new research, whoever directs them, without funding.

Tasks can be integrated. For example, questionnaires can be directly integrated into the contract signed between the people and the government. The questionnaire only has this question: What public demands do you think need to be promoted by the government at present, and what are your requirements for these demands? — panwei

That's a multi-part, ambiguous question. Even so, somebody has to ask it, figure out what different people mean by their answers and tally the responses. Integrated with what contract? Has it been written? All the people don't use one signature; they'd have to line up, be given the paper, hand in a copy, which would have to be filed.

Chinese civil servants themselves need to pass exams, and their promotions themselves need to go through internal examinations. — panwei

So do other nations' civil servants - within their own special area, judged by their instructors or supervisors - not the population at large. Are you saying only people already in the civil service are eligible for office? That would be a closed system, with no input from from the governed. It could work, as long as all the department and agency directors are able to communicate effectively, agree on priorities and procedure, then allocate resources and co-ordinate their efforts. In that case, all you need from the people is a year-end review.

That would be much like an election, only with no campaigning. The people would be passing judgment on the performance of entire departments. Presumably the most capable department heads could then be promoted from municipal to county office and from there to federal. In that case, they'd need a replacement from inside the ranks, by seniority or chosen by their peers, because the general public doesn't know what each civil servant contributed to the success of each project. Or the decision can be whether department heads are left in their place or fired. Successful federal level directors would, I suppose, keep their office until retirement or death.

So you've given up direct access to the administration? Okay.
I still think governing could be done more efficiently and cheaply by one big central AI.

1. The research involved here is not to respond to a fashion trend, but to establish judgment standards and quantitative standards based on public demands. Before finding a more appropriate standard, the existing research results do not need to be abandoned.
2. This is not technically difficult and does not require much investment.
3-1) People's opinions have been expressed through standards, and customers do not need to pay attention to the promotion of personnel within Apple. 3-2) The reason why it is like an election is that elections are also a form of authorization. All forms of authorization are very similar, but elections are not a qualified form of authorization, because the essence of authorization is that A entrusts B to execute a specified goal or task.
4. Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people.That is, the people still have the right to decide the weight and demands of various demands.

Artificial intelligence cannot replace the decision of the people. — panwei

But can represent the will of the people far more accurately that a questionnaire made up by people.

Because from a normative perspective, land ownership does not belong to artificial intelligence, but to the people, — panwei

Land ownership is a human invention (an abominable one) and has been so hotly contested in history as to cause millions of lives.

so even if artificial intelligence is in power, it still needs to be authorized by the people. — panwei

How will 'the people' enforce those demand, when they own almost nothing and the oligarchs own almost everything? An independent AI could solve the disparity, but one owned by the oligarchs can only make it worse.
Your idea is not wrong; it's just unworkable in this present world and far too unwieldy in any world.

Seems to me there is no tension: If the candidates have been assessed on a "set of standards" which literally reflect the will of the people, there are two possible voting outcomes:

1. votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected); or
2. people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

There is a third(possible) issue: Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion. People are not honest when they want to give an impression of their intentions and 'will'. This one seems to transpire in the world. People answer surveys and polls differently than they actually vote.

Perhaps this means there's a conflict. I don't think so. It just is how voting works. The Electoral college is an issue, but a different one.

votes reflect the will of people in regard to those standards (expected);

1. In this case, elections are superfluous.

people vote against their own interest due to things like idol worship and single-issue blinders at voting time.

2. This is just as you said, the election results go against their own interests.
1+2=In the case where the standards can represent the will of the people, elections are either superfluous or go against their own interests.
In fact, the possibility of situation 1 is extremely small, because if we use these standards to screen the rulers, then the successive presidents of the United States are not even qualified to participate in the competition.So there is almost no chance of overlap.

Those standards and the 'will' is an illusion.

3.
1) The people and the government are in an authorization relationship and follow the norms of the authorization relationship.
2) In an authorization relationship, when the decision of the authorizer is not illegal, the authorizer has the right to decide the entrusted matters. For example, when we go to a restaurant to eat, we need to order dishes first. By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs.
3) In an authorization relationship, the needs of the authorizer are subject to the content of the contract. For example, if I want to eat roast chicken, but I actually ordered roast duck, then the restaurant is only responsible for the roast duck, but not the roast chicken. And these standards are exactly the content of the contract.

4. Let us first assume that elections and standards each represent a certain kind of public opinion. When these two kinds of public opinion conflict, only the purposeful public opinion can fundamentally represent the interests of the people, so adjustments should be made to the executive candidates. For example, suppose you want to eat roast chicken, but A does not know how to make roast chicken. If you choose A, you will not be able to eat roast chicken. If only B can make roast chicken, then you should choose B instead.

superfluous — panwei

No, just unfortunate. And I think that is the case. That's why there's (still) a push against democracy. People tend not to vote in their own best interests, so those standards aren't usually reflected in the vote. Superfluous makes no sense here, as nothing is done simply by having standards which you wish to see met in the governing of your society. We (collectively) woyuld have no idea what the standards, or the meeting of them could constitute unless votes at least ostensibly gave us an idea - then the fallout gives us the truth, so to speak.

I cannot grok anything from your second para.

By ordering dishes to complete the authorization, we can clearly express our needs. — panwei

What's being authorised here? Either you mean you're giving permission to be served (that's disanalogous) or you're saying one must author their own desires. Sure, but pointless and unhelpful. If the ordering is supposed to be the same as a vote, then also disanalagous in the extreme.

And these standards are exactly the content of the contract. — panwei

You didn't establish any standard there?

The final section reads like someone in fourth form trying to wrangle their head around why elections often don't result in a positive outcome. So much is true. But that is something of a given, far, far prior to the type of comments i'm mkaing.

Maybe it's a translation problem, and I mistakenly thought you read the follow-up discussion.
Well, my point is: when we talk about how the regime is formed, it should be the people who decide the weight of the government's policy goals, let the government implement these goals, and then decide whether the government responsible persons can be promoted based on the results of their implementation, so as to determine the governance team of a country step by step. The standards mentioned in the original post are used to measure the degree of achievement of these goals.