American juries are not exactly "hand-picked." They are closely questioned under oath by attorneys for both side. If a prospective juror appears to be unfriendly to one side or the other, or incapable of passing judgment, he or she is dismissed.

Each side also gets a limited opportunity to dismiss prospective jurors for no stated reason at all.

The "jury pool" is indeed selected from randomly chosen people on the local voting rolls.

But to dispense with the questioning ("voir dire") would raise the probability of prejudiced, indecisive, and moronic jurors serving on the panel. A jury is empaneled only when all of its members have been approved by both sides.

So to call it "hand-picked" is entirely misleading.

As for the electoral college, it was the price the free states had to pay to get the slave states to join the Union in 1787.

Since the "3/5 rule" was intended to restrict stave-state representation in Congress by lowering its "official" population, these less populous states demanded in return a way to exert somewhat greater influence on the outcome of presidential elections - the only time the electoral college comes into play.

The Founders rejected the alternatives to the electoral college: direct democracy or election of the president my members of Congress.

They believed among other things that the electoral college would be less corruptible than the alternatives.