[JoshTriplett]

That would turn legislation into marketing. We have a bad enough problem already with knee-jerk legislation passed because it sounds shiny.

Now, as a filter, introduced in addition to umpteen other ways to prevent legislation from passing, it sounds potentially helpful. Anything that makes legislation fail by default without an exceptionally good reason to pass would improve matters.

[seabee]

To a large extent this is the purpose of the House of Lords in UK parliament.

The selection process for its members is not at all democratic which leaves a bad taste in many people's mouths. But the general concept of an elected body whose members serve over several terms of government can be helpful to limit overtly populist or ill-thought-out legislation.

[epscylonb]

Yeah, I wasn't suggesting the jury be only check and balance, and I don't think it would be a silver bullet.

We are where we are because business (those who desire money) and politicians (those who desire power) have overlearned the system.

There is no reason why they couldn't overlearn the jury check as well, I can't think of a simple solution.

Perhaps we are doomed to cycles of people being complacent, which lets tyranny flourish only to be ended violently?.