While personally I think this is a great idea, it's nothing new.
In a technocratic society; specialists rule. It wouldn't matter whether the President would be a programmer, engineer, or theorist. Any scientist would do an equally good job at re-factoring the government's inefficiencies.
But sadly, a FPTP voting process means it's a popularity contest. Fix the voting system, and open up this possibility. My vote's on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
Instant runoff voting has the problem of nonmonotonicity. A simpler ranking system without rounds of elimination and vote shuffling would be better, IMO.
Proportional representation might work until we have a runoff system of some kind. So for example at the state level, if 40% vote liberal, 40% vote conservative, 10% vote green and 10% vote libertarian, then that percentage from each party would go into office.
So out of 100 representatives, 10 of them would be green and 10 would be libertarian, instead of the 0 (or maybe 1 if we're lucky) that we end up with now. They use this system all over in Europe and even though they have their own unique set of problems, they're able to stay on top of issues that the US seems perpetually unable to grasp.
You are proposing a Borda system. The problem with Borda is the effect of "tactical voting" which would encourage people to not vote how they truly feel, in order to obtain their desired outcome. A better method would be a selection method where a voter can select multiple candidates (one or many).
In a technocratic society; specialists rule. It wouldn't matter whether the President would be a programmer, engineer, or theorist. Any scientist would do an equally good job at re-factoring the government's inefficiencies.
But sadly, a FPTP voting process means it's a popularity contest. Fix the voting system, and open up this possibility. My vote's on this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE