2 ms·
The big difference that I see from juries, is that juries only choose from a fairly limited selection of possibilities, and they have a few specifically identif
by TheCoelacanth 9y ago
The big difference that I see from juries, is that juries only choose from a fairly limited selection of possibilities, and they have a few specifically identified professionals (the judge and the lawyers for each side) who guide them through the process. With an actual government, there are only a few constraints and everything else is open to them. There are also thousands of interested parties trying to influence them instead of just two. That would make their job much more challenging than being a juror. It could potentially end up handing more power to lobbyists because of the inexperience of the people in power and resulting in more corruption because there are no longer have to hide it to ensure re-election.
- a_imho 9y agoI mean it is already practiced in some form, this is not a whole new concept. Of course, there are discussions to be held about the implementation details, including the governments reach and the checks and regulations. A lot can be argued about what political experience brings to the table (imo bad things for the very large part, but that is a ugly can of worms). Personally, I would trust my neighbor more to do The Right Thing, than any career politician. Nevertheless, a sampling based method is much more representative and more in line with the rule of the people idea.