An interesting article, it’s basically arguing the case for political representatives to be elected by a random jury, rather than every idiot who can find his/her way to the polling booth.
It’s an interesting idea, but doesn’t solve the main problems with our democracy, stupid people, and a biased media.
I’ve done jury service, it was a good experience, and I think the verdict was fair. The is an important difference here though. I didn’t know the defendant, the prosecution, or any aspect of the case before entering that courtroom. With politics, I do. The media has already swayed me, I know the people involved, I’ve read about them for years, if this were the case in a criminal trial, I wouldn’t be allowed on the jury, as I’ve got a prejudice.
I agree totally, our (Australian and UK) political system is broken (the US system is probably beyond repair, it’s basic tribalism), the UK less so, as the main news source (the BBC) is remarkably fair and, I believe, institutionally unbiased (although individual presenters will obviously have their own opinions.)
In Australia, nobody in their right mind would vote for Tony Abbott, but he got elected, how? Well, the electorate weren’t in their right mind, a court would consider them to have been coerced, and not acting reasonably.
The media needs to change, we cannot have a situation where a newspaper or TV news takes a side, the only purpose for this is to alter the electorates mind, this is not democratic.