How to deal with angry voters

Democracy is the worst way to rule - with the exception of all other ways (copyright Sir Winston Churchill). Apparently, Sir Winston's appreciation of this method to come to decisions was rather limited. If you would propose a partner to marry, it would be unwise to add: you do so, because you can't find any better. Indeed, even the old greek inventors rated this strategy only as the second best. They preferred wise absolute rulers. But wise rulers are difficult to find. All too often, their wisdom vanishes once they are in power.
In democracies, it's up to the people to decide, at least during elections. Some elected rulers turned into dictators and later found it amusing that they got access to their absolute position only thanks to the old democratic habits (that they have now replaced by 'better' ones...). It is one of the dangers threatening each democracy, that disappointed voters turn their hope to narcissistic personalities. True democracies are always at this risc. The risc can be reduced by offering better alternatives. Voters need a way to signal their discomfort. Here is a proposal, how this could be accomplished.
One way to signal discomfort is not to vote at all. In many democracies, the participation in free elections declines over the years from vote to vote. This can have several reasons. The optimistic assumption is that more and more voters find out that in principle everything runs fine also without their participation. It may, however, also signal increasing frustration and the feeling that they stay unheard, whatever their vote is.
A clearer way to become aware of discomfort would be to count unguilty votes. Most of them are deliberately disvalued by the voter, a clear sign of general disagreement. Usually, such votes are acknowledged but have no further consequences. A big mistake. They should be taken serious. Of cause in retrospect they cannot be assigned to particular voters, since democratic votes must be anonymous. We cannot simply inquire the motives. But negative voters should at least get a chance to say something.
Unguilty votes should be treated as votes for an additional fictitious party, that was not on the list. To fill this party with life, we should select by chance a representative (1) assembly of all voters (of those, who had participated in the election; 2). They should convene and send deputies to the venue that was the target of the election. If it was a personal election (e.g. a presidential election) they should nominate their own candidate (3).
Essential to this proposition is the source of the recruited representatives. Unguilty votes instruct only the quota of delegates to be assigned. The delegates themselves, however, are not taken from the same source (the constituting individuals being unknown), but from the whole voting population. This reduces the risc that the selection process will end up with a collection of egotistic personalities incapable to cooperate with each other.
The procedure will take some time. A first call for representative participants to the assembly of 'random voters' may not be successful. A second round may be necessary. We should invest this time as a tribute to sound democratic principles. Under usual conditions, unguilty votes make up only a few percent of the total. With a 'random voters party' on the agenda, this fraction will increase accordingly, bringing new life to an old idea.
At the end of the term, the 'random voters assembly' has completed its task and is suspended (it may compete as regular party on the voting list for the next elections). According to the results of the new election, a new list of random voters is drawn to constitute a new random voters assembly. Since only a small sample is drawn from a much larger reservoir of voters, it is unlikely that anyone will be selected once more. Maybe, for the sake of true randomness, this eventuality should be excluded by the selection rules.
7/24 <          MB (8/24)          > 8/24
(1) Representative in terms of residency, ethnicity, age and sex. The number of deputies to be delegated is proportional to the quota of unguilty votes. Candidates who agree to participate are put on a random list with considerably more positions than actually needed. Deputies may at any time resign from their duties, being replaced from the random list.
(2) Each voter is obliged to prove his / her identity to verify his / her right to vote and to prevent multiple votes by one and the same voter. Voters younger than the age of admittance to the function to be held must be excluded. For logical reasons, also members of one of the competing parties cannot appear on a list that is based on decliners of all suggested options.
(3) This increases the likelyhood that none of the candidates reaches the absolute majority after a first round. If unguilty votes make up more than a third, the second round will be between a new candidate and one of the original candidates.
Society as a complex system