@swcollings Still looking at this, though if I'd be more general in criticism:

The questions in voting and elections are not just assessing the Will of the Voter, or some General Electoral State. There are additional concerns.

Also, DSP of itself doesn't concern a problem domain in which the extracted signal itself feeds back to the input, at least not in any particular direct manner. It's an open, rather than a closed loop.

In governance, governing is a chief concern, and that itself has multiple components.

There's reflecting actual will or intent, which is notoriously difficult. See Arrow's Impossibility Theorem for one classic example.

There's achieving good and relevant decisionmaking. Athens' citizens may very well have meant and wanted to put Socrates to death in the moment, but may also have regretted that decision later. (See any number of similar decisions.) Does the voting system itself affect such outcomes.

There are the inherent corruption and control questions. Schulson's essay addresses these at length, in various dimensions. Selection-by-lot in particular renders manipulation to achieve narrow first-past-the-post legislative, executive, judicial, or separated-powers governmental control far more difficult.

There's sensitivity and susceptibility to short-term informational or media manipulation, or various forms of decision bias, as with the Kantu’ augury Schulson mentions.

And there are other approaches to governmental organisation and process --- multiple branches (as in the US), multiple parties, proportional representation, different voting schemes (first-past-the-post, ranked-choice, straw polles, ...), and manipulation (voting procedures and practices, registration requirements, Gerrymandering, legislature size (the US House would have over 11,000 members if apportioned at the original 1 per 30,000 constituents stated in the Constitution).

Which your analysis seems to largely omit.