Perhaps they hated Bill Shorten. Maybe they loved Scott Morrison.

They might have feared a “retiree tax”. Or a “carbon tax”. Or a “death tax”. They could have wanted to see the Adani mine built. Or feared for the seizure of their V8 ute in exchange for an electric vehicle. They might not care for their local member. Or they might think he or she is excellent. Maybe they love rugby league. Or hate jogging. Or fear asylum seekers. Or despise class war rhetoric.

In our political system there are countless potential reasons for the selection of one party over another; claiming a “mandate” for any individual policy seems optimistic. When a significant part of said policy doesn’t take effect for five years, the claim seems particularly specious.

And still, I fear our political system is approaching permanent stasis, with each party constantly trying to neutralise and stymie the other so that we go backwards through sheer inaction.

It’s more than 20 years since John Howard won the GST election, and Australia’s record of significant reform since could be described as modest at best.

The drum beats are getting louder, with Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe repeatedly calling since May for structural reform to support fiscal and monetary stimulus measures to boost the economy.

Meanwhile, the Henry tax review of 2010, Tony Shepherd’s 2014 Commission of Audit report, and a Tony Abbott-sponsored tax discussion paper are just some of the many documents gathering dust as governments have struggled to make headway.

It’s been a golden age for scare campaigns, on both sides of politics.

Work Choices, the mining tax, pokies reforms, the emissions trading scheme, GP fees and mortgage broking changes are just some of the policies to have fallen victim to large-scale anti-reform campaigns run, as a general rule, by people with a healthy degree of political or economic self interest.

Add in voters’ recent rejection of Labor’s ambitious policy agenda, and is it any wonder politicians are in no rush to pursue meaningful reform?

We have become a risk-averse nation, increasingly in thrall to the idea that change – particularly anything that affects us personally – is to be resisted.

So how does a government achieve anything approaching structural reform? One model being tested by newDemocracy involves the creation of citizens’ juries, where a random selection of a few dozen people research an issue, learn from experts whom they select, and come to an informed opinion about thorny policy areas. The idea is with trust in politicians at an all-time low, the wider community is more likely to put their faith in the opinions of random strangers.

The concept has merit, and early experiments have been promising, but the potential for expansion inevitably comes back to trust. Who was selected and why? Was it fixed somehow? And perhaps more pertinently in an era where cynicism reigns, how do you prove it wasn’t?

One way would be to include more than a few dozen people. The 2017 same-sex marriage plebiscite was ridiculed as a waste of $81m to pass a law that the majority of both the populace and the parliament supported.

Well, yes. But. The one thing the plebiscite did was remove the ability for a vocal minority to hijack the political system to inflict their views on the rest. Given the trajectory of many other reforms in recent times, this is no small feat.

Here the government was given a very clear mandate to implement. And it’s worth nothing that no one is campaigning to repeal the Marriage Amendment Act.

So why not more plebiscites? Purists may groan at a further example of the ineptitude of government to get anything done. But a pragmatist might accept the old system is broken, either temporarily or permanently, and seek ways to work within existing confines.

Why not have a plebiscite in every term of government? It could contain more than one question. Governments might be bolder in their ambition when their very jobs don’t rely on not scaring the horses. They can make the case for meaningful change and let the public have the ultimate say. Alternatively, a popular vote could be employed to ratify the results of an earlier citizens’ jury. The key is to ensure all the facts are examined in detail so as to avoid a Brexit-style vote that becomes fiendishly difficult to deliver.

Still, anything seems preferable to the current malaise. The easy assets have all been sold. Tax increases are hugely unpopular. So too spending cuts. Yet people expect better health services, schools and internet speeds. For too long politicians – oppositions usually – have pretended they can achieve the impossible when the reality is that government is about tough choices. Yes, an $81m plebiscite is a significant cost, but the price of another two decades of minimal structural reform would be far, far greater.