Would depend what you meant by "improvement" - you'd have a lot of people going into office that would have minimal to no experience with running the government, so with every turn over, things would take a substantial amount of time to get running up to speed.

On the other hand, it would significantly change the way "lobbying" is done as lobbyists would not have time to "get to know" anyone - it'd be expensive to "buy" politicians and some people simply won't be bought and put their principles first. It would also significantly improve the legislation being brought forth simply on the basis that you'd have actual people putting laws forward. There wouldn't be things like "but the members of Congress are exempt" (like with the healthcare bill) because no one would be a member of Congress for longer than a couple years and everyone would eventually go back to being a civilian. Doing it for both houses of congress would probably be a bad idea - but letting the Senate remain the "debate" arm and turning the House into a venue where a realistic slice of the popular vote mattered would change things; especially if the same rules that applied now applied then (both houses of Congress have to pass a bill, then the President has to sign off on it).

In that one change, you'd have a genuine change to the whole system of government - the Judicial Branch would have to be very careful of laws they okay'd or gave the thumbs down to because of the potential for the new Congress to undo their work. Presidents would have to pitch their real views to the public because they'd never know if, half way through their term, the guy they bold face lied to would be the new Congressman from Arizona. The war machine would grind to a halt - war can only be declared and continued as long as Congress lets the purse strings stay open. Real reform would be possible.

I'm not saying it would be your definition of an improvement - I'm saying that it would completely change things from the way they currently are, and any change that opens the doors to a real government "of the people, by the people, for the people" (as opposed to the current status quo, "of the top 1%, by the top 1%, for the top 1%")...that sounds like a change I could believe in.