[wasimanitoba]

I think the difference is that you can specify independently verifiable criteria for the selection process and require participants to decide based on those criteria alone without forcing them to become political actors who must directly bear the consequences of political decisions.

Not totally immune to issues of partisanship, but at least somewhat insulated.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

OK, so what criteria would you specify?

BTW, the original intent of the Electoral College in the United States was pretty similar to this. Electors were supposed to be independent actors exercising their independent judgement in selection of the president. It wasn't sustainable for long.

[rvba]

I actually agree with you that the independant commission can lead to partisanship with extra steps.

Possibility to beat this deadlock: one party picking few candidates from the commission and OTHER party (parties) accepting one of them. Still can lead to "choose the lowest evil" and I can imagine Repiblicans not accepting anyone of Democrata were ruling.

[bubblewand]

This understates the failure: it was about as close to “immediate” as it could be. The whole structure was pointless just about as soon as the new state began to operate.

The electoral college is basically an appendix, except it was never a useful organ. It malfunctioned completely, right out of the gate.

[0xDEAFBEAD]

Sure, so that suggests that these so-called "independent nonpartisan panels" are likely to fail immediately as well. It illustrates the principle that good intentions are no match for incentives.