Imagine an alleged bicycle thief is to be tried, and if found guilty go to prison. Instead of determining the verdict by a jury trial; it will be determined by a popular vote on a public referendum. Even staunch supporters of our present mass voting system, might agree that in this situation, fairness requires a jury of citizens only allowed to vote, after they attended a public trial.

Such a trial would need to allow both the prosecution and defense to present to all the jurors, the facts and arguments they believe most important. Most would agree that substituting a public referendum where any eligible voter could vote without witnessing the trial, would be a denial of justice and due process. If such mass voting or “Mobocracy” is inadequate to determine the quilt or innocence of an alleged bicycle thief, why should it be considered adequate to select our political leaders and decide referendum?