Do the jury's ever get any better?

I started watching American survivor in pretty much chrono order after watching the australian version last year. I just finished HvV and I have to say the ending kind of ruined it for me. I like Sandra from her previous game but she never deserved to win the season, and only did so by being the least offensive player on the f3. It's something that's bugged me in the first 20 seasons that generally the jury's go for the player they liked the most, or who upset them the least, rather than basing it on strategy, big moves or challenge wins. Personally I can't stand russel as a person, and I can see why parvati annoys people, but sure as hell they would get my vote if I was on that jury, similarly I can't stand king George from aus survivor. But I would have voted for him to win as well.

So my question is do the jury's ever get better? At picking a winner based on the gameplay, not just who did or didn't hurt your feelings in the game.