Let us suppose that a state is transitioning to a democracy from an autocracy.
We have an unicameral legislature, where the members do not have a single vote each, instead they vote with a number of votes equal to their two-party-preferred majority in their seat. Elections are held each five years on a fixed date.
Overt political parties are outlawed; each candidate must campaign in isolation from other candidates, and may not mention any current or previous candidate by name while campaigning.
Some questions have been asked about this system:
"Two-party preferred majority" means that in each seat, voters number boxes corresponding to candidate names in order of preference. The ballot papers for the two candidates with the greatest number of "1"s in their box are placed in separate piles, and every other ballot paper is placed in one pile or the other according to whether candidate A or candidate B has the lower number. Once all ballot papers are distributed to A or B, whichever candidate has the most votes wins the seat. However, in parliament, the candidate does not typically get just one vote, but votes with the number of votes by which they won the seat.
Each ballot paper also ends in a "None of the Above" candidate, and if this non-candidate wins, the election for that seat must be held again with all the candidates on the previous ballot paper disqualified from candidacy until the next election date, meaning that new candidates must be nominated or the seat left vacant. "None of the Above" is also a dummy candidate against which a single candidate for a seat must compete.
E.g. if A gets 1987 two-party-preferred votes and B gets 1763, A wins, and gets 224 votes in parliament. This obviously favours very popular representatives over those who just squeak in by a handful of votes.
There are a number of seats in parliament, each representing a geographical area containing roughly equal numbers of voting constituents. Every citizen considered adult (i.e. 18 or over and not mentally incapacitated) gets to vote, and indeed must vote unless absent during an election - we'll have no idiots (in the Athenian sense) here if we can help it.
Elections are on a fixed date: Day x of Month Y every fifth year. This means that the incumbent representatives cannot wait to call an election until their popularity is high as happens in some electoral systems. When the election is due, it happens, even if it isn't in the best interests of the government's members chances for re-election.
As for political parties, alliances can and will happen, this is expected. However, it is illegal to give these alliances a corporate name (such as "Party X") and it is illegal for the candidates to associate themselves with, against, or even mention any other candidates by name when campaigning for an election. This is intended to bring the focus onto the candidate's platform (or lack thereof), and not campaign on the basis that "I'm a member of popular group X" or "Group/member Y is lousy, pick me instead."
Candidates can campaign that "Policy Q is a bad idea, it would be better to have Policy R", and by implication identify another candidate (as the originator of Policy Q).
Since representatives should not be placed in ministerial positions that do not fit their skill sets, they must nominate themselves and campaign for said positions. The minister for X is in charge of X, even if they are a member of a minority alliance, and only they can originate bills concerning the X portfolio.
As a bit of background, this is a city state with an unpopular non-hereditary and effectively immortal lord whom no-one had been able to remove until now, and the person who removed the lord knows about democracy and decided to give rule to the people rather than rule themselves as was their right by mandate of conquest, in order to permanently eliminate the highly unsavoury custom that was the lord's traditional prerogative and effective source of immortality.
Would this system work? How could - and would - it be abused? What would its strengths be?