I am always struck by the fact that in Court, barristers, who are representing people whose interests are diametrically opposed, are always civil and polite to each other, and at the end of the day, leave the Court room and drink at the same bar as their opponent. They refer to their opponent as 'My friend,' except when they think they are saying something stupid, in which case they say 'My learned friend.'
I propose that a system should be devised where the political arena works the same way as a Court. Politics are presented to the public by people who are paid to present the facts, arguments, and suggestions, who are also bound by the duties towards disclosure, the Court, the clients (political parties), and the interests of Justice.
As an example, a party can use a study to demonstrate that their policy is the best one. They refer to Study A, Study B, and Study C. However, the opposition refers to Studies D, E and F, and say that they contradict the policy.
In the legal system, when presenting a case, you are bound (in the civil system at least) to disclose ALL the evidence, not just what supports your case. So, in the above example, the party must disclose studies A, B, and C, but also Studies D, E and F. They should also disclose Studies G, H, and I, which suggest that ABC, DEF are biased, and don't prove anything, because they were funded by XYZ, who support QRT.
This allows a listener/arbitrator/Court/voter to make a decision based on all the evidence, not just the hyped up Study that may (or may not) support the policy.
Worth laughing at: