Hierarchical Review Democracy

I want to describe another iteration of the concept. 

To recap: in a Review Democracy the public reviews the votes of politicians, collectively approving or disapproving of the way they voted on proposed legislation. This creates a scoring system with the highest ranking politicians at the top of the leaderboard and the lowest ranking at the bottom. This leaderboard then determines who advances to higher office, in essence it functions like a primary election and is used in place of primary elections. The highest ranking politicians at the local level become eligible to run for office at the state level, and the highest ranking politicians at the state level become eligible to run for office at the federal level. There are  of course still elections as normal. The lowest ranking politicians at each level are banned from seeking election or re-election at any level and so the system acts like a kind of natural selection that continuously filters out politicians whose actions are hated. This forces the public to pay attention to what politicians do and not just what they say and creates constant pressure for politicians to conform their behavior to the will of the public.

In a regular review democracy the public reviews politicians at every level: Municipal, County, State, and Federal. But in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public reviews only their leaders at the municipal and county level, while the politicians at those levels review politicians at the state level, and the politicians at the state level review politicians at the federal level. This is similar to the Chinese system the presently exists where the Village People's Congress votes for Provincial People's Congress which votes for National People's Congress. The Chinese have hierarchical elections but in a Hierarchical Review Democracy the public still vote for for all levels and it is only the primary process that becomes hierarchical.

Each level of government reviews the way politicians voted at the next higher level, determining who is allowed to run for office. The public still votes for all levels of government as usual. 

Perhaps this will mollify critics who are worried about such a government being too populist in nature. I am not sure hierarchical review is a good idea since it fundamentally alters the nature of the system from one where the people are forced to be aware of everything their government does to one where insiders are reviewing insiders. Granted, a system of insiders potentially insulates itself from outside financial influence much better, and would not be populist at all, but I am reminded of the Catholic Church where the Pope appoints bishops and the bishops elected the Pope. It's a completely circular system of power totally immune to outside reform efforts. One immediately notices the effects of that lack of accountability on it's abuse metrics. Overall I have more faith in the people than most—or perhaps less desire to have my preferred oligarchy dominate since all oligarchies betray.