I've now watched your video three times. It's very well-produced and I admire the effort, but I believe the theology is somewhat incoherent.You evaded the point. God created an infinite universe to save just a few? Is THAT what you believe?
You keep using the term "the elect" and "predestination," but it seems throughout most of the video that these terms aren't being used in a Calvinistic sense. You seem to be talking about "corporate predestination," whereby God predestined that all who turned to him through Christ would be saved. They join "the elect" only after they turn to Christ. At the end of the video there is some confusion about this, which I address below.
I don't disagree that if God wished to create humans with whom he could enjoy genuine communion in a loving relationship, he had to give them libertarian free will and risk the possibility that some would reject him. You say this created a "dilemma" for God - incur the risk or not create at all. By your theology, approximately 1/3 will be lost, an analogy to 1/3 of the angels supposedly having fallen.
The only thing your theology seems to add to existing theology, Calvinistic or non-Calvinistic, is that people who don't hear the Gospel at all or who reject it in this lifetime because they are deceived by evil will be given an opportunity to join the elect after they experience the torments of Hell. From my debates with Universalists, after-death salvation is a standard part of the theology of many of them. What you suggest is exactly what they posit: No one who experiences Hell will rationally reject God.
Your theology is much narrower. The torments of Hell will merely cause "the elect" who didn't join the body of Christ in this lifetime do so after death. Even the torments of Hell will not convince the 1/3 who are destined to be lost. This then begins to sound as though you are talking about "the elect" in some Calvinistic sense. If not, why don't the other 1/3 come to their senses as well? It's difficult to make sense of this unless there is something special about the elect.
One problem, of course, is that after-death repentance has never been part of orthodox Christianity. What's the point of this life if we get a second chance after death? The whole point of the mysterious way God operates in this world, giving only hints and clues to his existence, is (I believe) that he doesn't want to coerce belief. He really does want us to come to him of our own free will. The torments of Hell would be the ultimate coercion. Who in the torments of Hell is really going to be exercising his or her own free will?
To me, your theology would only make sense if it were Calvinistic: the elect are so fully predestined that God will make sure they are saved even if the blow it in this lifetime. To me, this would add nothing to Calvinism, which says the elect will hear and respond in this lifetime. Anyone who doesn't hear or respond simply wasn't elect.
I'm also puzzled has to how you think 1/3 being lost is some great improvement on what I suggested. I simply said that Moreland's and Craig's thesis is that the world we have is the one in which God decided maximal good would be accomplished. Some - many - will indeed be lost, but this is the price of producing X number of humans who do respond to God. You simply add that "only" 1/3 will be lost and that there will be an opportunity to join the elect from the torments of Hell.