The simple model works when you're dealing with proving that your cat is on fire, it's much harder when the topic gets complicated.
Then as a society we apply the wisdom of the crowd.
And we've come full circle back to bias.
Not arbitrary, I'm not arguing that. I am arguing that education and intelligence isn't enough to combat biases. A lot of people commenting here are touting education and intelligence as some sort of bias reducing (or eliminating) tool, which it can be, but as I've said elsewhere I know plenty of educated intelligent people who are slaves to their biases. Some of these people gained their biases through education, and they discount their biases because they believe they are too intelligent to have biases.
What I think many people are missing here is that biases aren't something you educate away, they're something education helps you recognize and compensate for.
Also I note your use of the phrase"perfect judgments" here. Perfect how? For whom? Under what criteria? There's no such thing as a "perfect judgment" without framing it in a context (i.e. using a bias). One person's perfect, logically sound, rational judgment might not be so for another person.
I was not disputing we all have an internal bias built up by our experiences. The crux of that point is you try to minimise your own bias and try to further reduce that bias by including the bias of the remainder of society.
I don't think this is a terrible way to select a political candidate.
As an aside I don't understand how a political discussion could exist without bias. What is your model of politics that would allow it to exist without bias?