On 5/12/2022 1:08 AM, super70s wrote:
> In article <t5f482$nv4$1@dont-email.me>,
> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>
>> super70s <super70s@super70s.invalid> wrote:
>>> "Adam H. Kerman" <ahk@chinet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> Studies have also shown that a 12-person criminal or civil jury is more
>>>>> deliberative and thoughtful than a 6-person jury.
>>
>>>> The number of jurors is in no way analogous to the number of judges on an
>>>> appellate court.
>>
>>> I was just making the point that both of the bodies deliberate among
>>> themselves before making a final decision.
>>
>> Great! You also ignored the fact that your typical federal appellate
>> court judge works on a panel of three and that the circuit almost never
>> decides en banc (with all of the circuit court's judges deliberating).
>
> OK. That still doesn't make three people making decisions better than a
> panel of 12, according to the studies. The federal appellate court must
> be burdened with so many cases they can only get three judges to do that.

Hypothesis: A three-person panel might make better decisions because
each views his decision as highly consequential. In comparison, notice
the tribal mentality that dominates when *millions* are voting.