>

I’d argue that in a democracy, the right to vote is linked to the right to be judged by your peers. How else would you have an unbiased pool of jurors, literally any other way would restrict the pool and bias the jury.
To counter your argument I would say that if citizens in a democracy expect their right to vote then they should also expect their right to be chosen to serve on a jury, so it’s not a fear, it’s a right.
/u/Finchyy (OP) has awarded 1 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

The civic duty of Jury Duty is literally how we preserve other people's freedoms.  What suggestion do you have as an alternative for picking Jurors? >

Bench trials. Some countries don't have juries, just judges.
Though I've heard:
You want a jury if you're guilty and you want a judge if you're innocent. >

In the UK pretty much all minor crimes got the  magistrate court, a panel of 3 judges to determine guilt.
Only for serious crimes go to crown court with a jury. >


Because one must be on the electoral register to vote, and because jury service is a compulsory, freedom-restricting order from the government that draws its names from the electoral register, then jury service must cease drawing its names from the electoral register in order to give people the right to vote without any consequence.

You don't understand the UK electoral register. In the UK it is required to register to vote. You don't need to cast a vote but you are required to register. It is a criminal offense to refuse.
So either way jury duty isn't an additional restriction on someone voting or not. >

!delta I didn't know that you were required to be on the electoral register. If this is the case, then you do not have to consider risking being called for jury service when you make the decision to vote. >

Confirmed: 1 delta awarded to /u/Phage0070 (47∆).
^Delta System Explained ^| ^Deltaboards >

So in order to select a jury you need a representative sample of society near enough to the court that it isn't too inconvenient for them to do jury duty.
I cannot think of any other database other than the electoral register that is near universal and contains a relatively up to date idea of the person's location.
Drivers licenses last for about 10 years so the address can easily be wrong, passports don't store current address etc.
Moreover jury duty is exactly that, a duty you take on as part of society, and if 10 days+ of jury duty is too much, you can get assistance or an exemption from jury duty from the courts. >

So you want to free people from having to make the decision to vote and risk being selected for jury duty or not vote in order to save themselves from the possibility of jury duty? How will juries be selected under your system? >

Yes, I would like people to be able to vote without the risk of being selected for jury duty. If someone doesn't want to be selected for jury duty (for any reason - conscientious objection, social anxiety, or simply because they just don't want to), then I don't believe that should rob them of the right to vote.
I cannot think of an alternative way to select juries, although most citizens are registered to an address somewhere so there's certainly another way. National Insurance numbers are tied to individuals. Passports, too. >


freedom-restricting order

What freedoms are being restricted? 
​

compulsion of citizens

Is it compulsion if you can get out of it by saying you're busy at work or have a holiday booked? You can get out of jury service so easily that it's ridiculous to paint this issue with the "oppressive government over-reach" brush or as an issue that has any impact at all on the ability of British people to vote. >

Why not make going to vote a civil duty as well?  That'd also fix the issue you describe >

Greetings, fellow Finch. This isn't the topic of the CMV, but regardless, I don't think compelling people to vote is a very good idea. It would breed resentment and that's not the mindset one wants voters to have. Turnout in the UK is pretty good anyway. >

Your topic is about people not wanting to go vote because of the civil duty of being a juror being attached to this.  Your proposed solution is to decouple the 2.  I'm simply presenting an alternative solution to show there's no need to decouple these 2.
That being said, I didn't say that you should make it a civil duty to vote.  I said make it a civil duty to go vote.  There's a fundamental difference.  Here in Belgium we have a civil duty to go vote, you do not have to actually vote.  You just have to show up at the polling station, check in and that's it.  Whether you vote or not is entirely up to you.  
No resentment is present in Belgian voters stemming from this civil duty to go vote as far as I'm aware, we have turnouts of around 90%. >

While I agree that jury service is generally a pain, perhaps it could be viewed as a positive. If we consider judicial systems without juries, it seems like a privilege to be able to participate in the judicial system and impact the execution of the law. It is mandatory and has quite negative connotations but perhaps that's just our modern perception taking it for granted? 
My second point would be that registering to vote is registering to be engaged in the running of our country and in the UK that would include juries. >

Hi Finchy,
I think other people have provided better explanations than I could about why it's practical to use the electoral role for jury duty, but I think there's also a principal aspect to the decision to link the two that is interesting to explore as well.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but as far as I understand it, you see jury service and voting as distinct and independent actions, which makes combining them as a package deal an imposition of jury service upon people who just wanted to vote.
I think the British constitution sees things a little differently. Far from being two unrelated civic duties, voting and jury service are understood to be the two central parts of the same democratic process that ensures Britain's laws are in her public's interest.
Voting ensures that the laws that are made are those the public thinks right, while juries ensure that those laws are enforced in a way the public deems just. People must be willing to accept their duty to uphold the law if they want a role in shaping it. similarly, this is why the UK has been reluctant to give prisoners the vote. >

Would it change your mind if people were more fairly compensated for jury duty? So you could see it more as a paid job rather than a restriction on liberty? >


then jury service must cease drawing its names from the electoral register in order to give people the right to vote without any consequence.

Isn't it against the law to not register to vote?  
In the US, you can get called to jury duty because you simply exist as someone over the age of 18. >

Actually, in the US, jurors are selected from both voter registration and current ID/driver licenses, but failing to do either is not illegal.