It seems that what you’re proposing here is to implement a representative democracy on Bitcoin. I would be more in favor of a direct democracy that is well suited to decide the future of a public good such as Bitcoin. Elective democracy is more prone to corruption and while I agree that the plebs is not all knowing in all matters, collective intelligence is often superior to the intelligence of one corruptible committee of men. Open debates between experts would certainly be an important component to maintain. Participating in a process of direct democracy is optional and would require active participation from the node runners so it’s not everybody that would show up to have their voice heard, only those with a honest interest in improving the protocol.