FAQ

Don't juries make mistakes and bad decisions as well?

Absolutely. We can all think of legal cases where the jury returned a bad, or even biased, verdict. However, these exact same problems would exist, with even worse results, if we replaced the jury with a popular vote. 

Imagine if jurors were not required to attend court proceedings at all, spent a minimal amount of time learning about the case, and received all their information from a single media outlet that was heavily biased in favor of the defendant. Would you trust such a jury to make good decisions? This is the reality of how popular elections work today.

Aren't you being too cynical about the electorate? What makes you think today's voters aren't well-informed?

Surveys have demonstrated that voters are highly misinformed about basic issues. For instance, here's how the average American perceives the nation's demographics:

• Transgender: 21 percent

• Muslim: 27 percent

• Jewish: 30 percent

• Black: 41 percent

• Live in New York City: 30 percent

• Gay or lesbian: 30 percent

And here are the actual numbers.

• Transgender: 1 percent

• Muslim: 1 percent

• Jewish: 2 percent

• Black: 12 percent

• Live in New York City: 2 percent

• Gay or lesbian: 3 percent

If voters are this misinformed about their own nation's demographics, how well informed do you think they are about complex issues like economics, climate change, and their candidates' histories?

Wouldn't the "courtroom" infringe on politicians' freedom of speech?

In a regular courtroom, judges exercise great power over the arguments that lawyers are allowed to make, and the evidence they are allowed to present to the jury. But there's no reason an "Election by Jury courtroom" has to follow the exact same rules.

To make the transition as seamless as possible, we could start off without any restrictions at all. All politicians could be allowed to present any and all evidence, witnesses, and arguments, without any restrictions. This will mirror the way election-campaigns work today.

In future, we can consider whether it makes sense to have some rules. For example, we could require all politicians and their witnesses to swear an oath that they are telling the truth (under penalty of perjury). We could institute equal time limits, to prevent any one side from hogging the stage. 

These additional rules are all optional though, and can be done incrementally only if we as a society are convinced that they are helpful to our electoral process. In the meantime, we can allow politicians the same unfettered free speech that they currently enjoy. All the other benefits mentioned earlier would still apply.

So how exactly would this "courtroom" work?

In many ways, they would function similar to today's courtrooms. Namely:

1. Each politician (or their representative) will present their proposals and arguments for why they should be chosen.

2. Each side will call upon their expert-witnesses (such as economists, military generals, public policy researchers, journalists etc) to present evidence regarding their character, or the strengths of their proposals.

3. Each side will get the chance to cross-examine the others' witnesses, and perhaps even the other politician.

4. Once both sides have finished presenting their case, each juror will cast a secret ballot. These ballots will then be tabulated similar to current elections.

Unlike today's courtrooms however, the "judge" can be better thought of as a referee. Someone with minimal discretionary power, and whose role is to simply enforce the basic rules of the proceedings. Such as:

1. Allowing all witnesses to be cross-examined

2. Preventing people from talking over, interrupting, or disrupting one another

3. Preventing any and all acts of violence, coercion, or intimidation

4. If we choose to have time limits, enforcing those time limits

A Jury of 12 people returning a unanimous verdict would never work for political matters

There might only be 12 jurors in criminal cases, and they might be required to return a near-unanimous verdict. But that doesn't mean political juries must work the same way. The precise details can be designed from the ground up.

For starters, we envision a normal election process, not a unanimous "verdict". We would use standard election-style voting, not a legal verdict requirement.

Regarding size, a grand jury typically consists of 16 to 23 jurors. This can easily be enough to get high confidence in accurate outcomes in most cases. For instance, if 16 of 23 jurors support X over Y, then we have a 97% confidence that our result reflects what we’d get with 100% voter turnout. For more important elections, we could use an even larger jury - or multiple juries operating across multiple towns and counties.

How do we guarantee equal representation on the Jury?

There are a couple things we can do. First things first, the jury should be selected completely randomly. Next, unlike in the criminal cases, we can eliminate all "vetoes" or any other form of "jury selection." We can also ensure that anyone selected for jury service is given adequate financial compensation so it is never a reason for avoiding jury service. Finally, as discussed earlier, a 12-person jury is simply not large enough - we can have significantly larger juries, especially for elections with higher stakes.

Together, the above measures ensure that the jury pool will statistically mirror all demographics in our country.

It may be tempting to enforce demographic quotas based on race, gender, age, sexuality, etc. But this becomes harder and harder to implement in a bias-free manner, especially with the rise in multi-racial families, trans individuals, and the various intersections between all of these demographics. The most foolproof solution will always be to select jurors completely randomly, and have a large enough jury pool to achieve statistical robustness.

As a counterpoint to any concerns over random-disparities, consider the status quo. With the way our current system works, almost half of all citizens do not vote, and there are severe disparities among the voting population. For instance:

• Only 28% of eligible voters in the 18-24 age group voted in 2022. Whereas 67% of eligible voters in the 65+ age group voted

• Only 30% of Hispanics voted in 2022, whereas more than 50% of non-Hispanic Whites voted

• Only 35% of high-school graduates voted in 2022, whereas 70% of people with post-graduate degrees voted

It's clear that the current system does not equally represent all Americans. Even after adjusting for their population, old rich Whites enjoy almost twice as much political power as those who are younger, poorer, or racial minorities. Is it any wonder that retirees enjoy universal healthcare while our youths are paying through their nose for further education?

This is not intended to point fingers at anyone - nobody should ever be blamed for exercising their right to vote. But this demonstrates amply that any statistical disparities in an Election-by-Jury will be minor compared to the disparities we have today.

Wouldn't you need an extremely large jury to accurately reflect people's political preferences?

In 2022, there were 255 million Americans of voting age, divided into 435 congressional districts. This gives us an average of 586,000 eligible voters in each congressional district. In order to accurately measure the preferred candidate among these voters, with a 95% confidence interval and 5% margin of error, we will need a mere 384 jurors. That's less than the number of people you can seat in a single Boeing 777.

Admittedly, 95% is not 100%. There is still room for error. Just as our current system has room for error due to massive disparities in voter turnout, and the vast number of voters whose votes are swayed by lack of information, biased information, and outright misinformation. The type of risks may be different, but the overall risks are far lower in an Election-by-Jury.

Is there any precedent for this?

Election by Jury may sound like a radical idea, but it is not without precedent. In fact: 

• It is based on the ancient practice of sortition, or the use of random selection to fill public offices, which was widely used in ancient Greece and Rome, and in some medieval and Renaissance city-states

• It was used by the Republic of Venice to elect their head-of-state

• It is used today by many counties in Georgia (USA) to fill various boards and commissions

• It is based on the modern practice of jury trial, or the use of random selection to form a panel of citizens who decide the fate of a defendant, which is widely used in the U.S. and numerous other countries

You can read more about it here.

What If I don't get randomly selected for Jury Service?

Which is better? A 100% chance of casting one ballot, among 300 million voters? Or a 1% chance of casting 1 ballot, among 3 million voters? Statistically, both grant you the exact same amount of voting power.

Also consider the fact that if you live in a solid-blue or solid-red state, like most Americans, your vote will not change the outcome of the election. And even if you were to live in a battleground state, your single vote is vastly unlikely to change the outcome of the election.

The end-goal of our political process isn't for every single individual to be able to vote. The end-goal is for all demographics, rich and poor, men and women, old and young, to have a proportionately equal say in the way our country is governed... and to elect a government that can govern effectively. An Election-by-Jury is the best way to accomplish this goal.