Election by Jury

A primer on an innovative way to conduct democracy

"Is polling really essential to the democratic idea? There is a way by which the indisputable evils of democratic government may be very greatly diminished. Which will certainly raise the average quality of our legislators, and be infinitely saner, juster, and more deliberate than our present method. This way is the Jury system." - H.G. Wells

If you were accused of a crime, who would you want deciding your fate?

• A panel of randomly selected jurors, all of whom have spent multiple weeks sitting in a courtroom, listening to all the relevant facts and arguments put forward by all sides

• A popular vote open to hundreds of thousands of people in your county, the vast majority of whom only know a few sound bites about the case, which they heard from a biased and one-sided source

The premise behind "Election by Jury" is simple: we believe that our government, just like the criminal justice system, would function better if our representatives are elected after weeks of deliberation by a panel of randomly selected jurors. These jurors would hear from the candidates and their expert-witnesses, deliberate among themselves, and cast their votes in secret.

Here are a few of the most compelling benefits of our proposal:

1. Voters who are better informed

2. Better ways of combating misinformation

3. Breaking away from echo-chambers

Voters who are Better Informed

The Presidential election may get the most news coverage, but it is only the tip of the iceberg. On the same ballot, voters also need to decide whom to support in various local, state, and federal races. Depending on where you live, you may even need to decide on public policy directly via ballot initiatives.

How much time do you think your average voter spends on researching the candidates and issues for each one of these races? Given that their choices will shape the future of the country, do you think they are spending an appropriate amount of time? Plenty of research has shown that the answer is a resounding no.

The above isn't intended to shame anyone. Most of us have busy lives and demanding careers. Choosing our elected representatives and the public policies they are championing is an extremely complex decision that requires a tremendous amount of time and energy to research. Time and energy that most of us do not possess. It is simply infeasible to shut down the entire country for a month during each election season, just so every single citizen is given the time they need to research all the relevant issues.

Which is exactly why a jury-system works so well. Instead of expecting the entire country to come to a standstill, we can instead rely on a smaller group of randomly selected jurors. These jurors could be given time off from work and school, and be paid appropriately to offset any financial burdens. This would give them ample time and energy to deliberate deeply, before making vitally important decisions that will impact all of us.

Better Ways of Combating Misinformation

We live in an age of immense misinformation. Countries like Russia have entire offices filled with workers whose job is to post propoganda and misinformation on social media. With the rise of AI tools like ChatGPT, researchers are warning that we will see a flood of AI-generated disinformation during election years, designed to fool voters and subvert our elections.

This is yet another reason why jury-panels work so well. In a jury-centered "courtroom", all sides would get to present their arguments. However, the source of those arguments would also be made very clear and explicit. If a politician is claiming that their policy enjoys the support of experts, but they don't have any credible experts willing to take the stand and support them, it would become very clear to jurors that the politician is not being fully honest.

"On the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog." Not so in a courtroom. Which is precisely why jury-centered courtrooms are so much more resilient against misinformation.

Breaking Away from Echo Chambers

The vast majority of voters rely on a tiny handful of outlets for all of their political news and commentary. Democrats subscribe to liberal-leaning outlets like MSNBC, and Republicans tune in to conservative-leaning outlets like Fox News. Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you fall on, this is a problem for all of us.

Democracy works best when voters are well-informed, and that requires voters to know the most compelling arguments on all sides of the issue. With voters becoming increasingly polarized and segregated into ideological echo-chambers, they are instead shown a very one-sided, biased, and distorted view of reality.

This is precisely why legal courtrooms require jurors to sit through all arguments and witnesses presented by all sides. It is impossible to eliminate bias entirely - but we can achieve a better outcome when voters are at least exposed to the most compelling arguments put together by all sides.

Conclusion

We recognize that our proposed system isn't perfect, and it does not solve every single problem in the political process. However, by producing a better informed electorate, breaking them out of their echo chambers, and by better combating misinformation, an Election-by-Jury would function far better than the system of mass voting that we have today.

Have more questions or concerns? Check out our FAQ.
Want to learn more? There's plenty of stuff to read here.
Sounds interesting? Check out (and join) our forum.