1) In the first round of the election, with 18,000 candidates and 18,000 voters, the impact of each vote individually is negligible. In scenarios where an individual vote is of negligible value, votes generally do not vote out of crass self interest, but vote based on how the vote makes them feel out themselves - people vote out of sense of duty, justice, or social solidarity. Thus I would not expect the elector-voters to vote out of crass strategic self interest because it wouldn't really help them, and it would make the person feel rotten about themselves.

In the later rounds, though, it might be a problem. One idea I thought of is that "honey pot" applications of known awful candidates get planted in the mix, and if you give a top grade to one of these awful applicants, you're vote is disqualified.

But overall you may be right - the variation in which people outside the election are allowed to vote would probably be better.

2) Here's a fundamental question - should voting and elections be viewed as a means to an end? Or an end in itself? If you view voting as an end in itself, that's essentially a religious claim, and there's no grounds for debate. But if you view voting as a means to an end, I have no problem excluding people who aren't willing to put in the time to learn about the candidates. I would much rather have people not vote at all then vote based on slogans and sound bites.

3) The financial requirement ( the median income or about $40k in net worth) is not very steep. By definition, an average person who saves 10% of their income a year will be able to meet the requirement within ten years. I want my Representatives to be competent, experienced, wise, long-term-thinking individuals. If a person cannot meet that requirement, it means that they are either a) young b) incapable or unwilling of holding down an average job c) a live-for-the-moment spender. I have no problem excluding such people from office.

Polarization happens not because of the two candidates, but because of party spirit. Party spirit is something that happens over time, its the result of agitators who cultivate a voting block by spreading and ideology, convincing people to pledge themselves in solidarity, etc.

You can have just as many problems with multiple parties. For instance, the Weimar Republic had six major parties, yet it is among the worst examples of the dangers of party politics in history. The problem with our two party system is not bi-polarization, or a lack of choice. The problem is as Noah Webster said - its party spirit. And the problem of party spirit will be bad with two, three or six parties.