|HubPages Device ID|
|Login||This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.|
|HubPages Google Analytics|
|HubPages Traffic Pixel|
|Amazon Web Services|
|Google Hosted Libraries|
|Google AdSense Host API|
|Conversion Tracking Pixels|
|Author Google Analytics|
|Amazon Tracking Pixel|
Could a jury system replace our current way of electing political figures?
The supreme court could usher education on the people about the law and billions of dollars could be saved as well as having no political parties.
The jury system doesn't really work that well for its intended purpose, that of being the trier of fact in court cases.
The SCOTUS also has made less than a dozen good decisions in its history. The 5-4 decisions ignore the opinion of 4 equally qualified justices.
I don't see that connection you imply here, that SCOTUS could replace political parties to elect people to public office. What is the nexus for that, and where did the democratic republic go in the "people" voting.
I don't see your point.
I realize it would be difficult at first but if you think about it the system is set up now to have parties making billions over parties that are not liked in creation. I guess my point was to ask the question about jury systems being used.
Steven, as I mentioned the jury system barely works for its intended purpose, extending that would only make it worse. Maybe you should write a hub to articulate the details.
No, because it is way easier to manipulate a jury than a mass election, and if you have a single "court" or small selected suite, it is even easier to have the mere appearance of democracy for the sake of a ruling elite.
Copyright © 2018 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.