A "House of Wisdom" with democratically selected members, chosen for their knowledge and insight of all the different aspects of the way the country works rather than on party lines? Here is how it would work.
To start the system up, we would make a list of the most important fields of knowledge and influence, such as law, business, trades unions, teaching, religions, sciences, etc. Each of these fields would have a member in the House and a group of prospective members. Prospective members would put themselves forward and, where appropriate, would be endorsed by an appropriate organisation, for example the BMA would confirm that a prospective member in the medical field has medical qualifications.
Each voter would have a pair of votes every year, a positive one for a prospective member to move in or for a sitting member to stay in, and a negative one for a sitting member to move out or for a prospective member to be kept out.
For each field the votes are counted and if the positive votes minus the negative votes for a prospective member, exceeds the positive votes minus the negative votes for a sitting member, the sitting member is replaced by the prospective member.
Voters can use their votes for any member or prospective member, the hope is that they would use their votes in fields that they know and care about. For example, a voter active in the trades unions and concerned about education, might use their positive vote to keep their favoured member in and their negative vote to keep out a prospective member whose views he deplores, for example, an education expert who favours the promotion of creationism.
Ideally there would be a gradual turn over of members rather than a wholesale replacement and that in some fields, highly regarded members would remain in place.
In the long run the list of fields would evolve, in a direction determined by the voting pattern or by a specific vote. The House would then be completely democratic.