I'm not aware of any official name for what you're proposing (which basically combines referendum with candidate-matching). The closest - which isn't very close - I can think of is voting for party lists, with the party list being a secret before the election and you only know the party platform; in a multi-party state.

However, there are major flaws in your system; the biggest one I notice being the following: ***There is no mechanism to vet that the candidates declaring to be of the opinion X actually have that opinion, and thus the system is trivially easy to game***.

The specific - and very likely - scenario of how elections in such a system would go is as follows:

* Polling finds that electorate cares most about two issues, cats vs dogs (with cat supporters polling 40% and dog supporters 60%); and the right to put patty above the cheese in a cheesburger (with the righteous cheese-down freedom lovers unfortunately losing in the public opinion polls 20/80%)

* Any candidate who wants to win (and trusts the polls) instantly puts down their own preferences as supporting dogs at 60% and rejecting cheese by 80%.

* Hence, the candidates that guessed the final election spread more accurately, will win.

* **There absolutely zero reason to suspect that any of those candidates actually hold those positions; and won't instead vote for a law that requires all hamburgers to be dog meat above cheese**.

  Since you don't know who the candidates are before the election, there's no way to prevent this. 

Of course, normal elections suffer from this to a degree (any candidate lies when promising stuff) but as they aren't anonymous, they can at least be accountable post-election, in a normal electoral fashion.

----

Of course, since the system is also akin to referendums, you also have many of the flaws with "everything is a referendum" described in the [linked P.SE question][1].


  [1]: https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/9670/direct-voting-on-every-issue-referendum-new-political-system