That would not be the same situation at all. In the case of general knowledge questions, obviously the small groups will do better because people who are uncertain and would have voted randomly will instead listen to whomever is confident. And everyone works together to pool knowledge.
In political voting the problem is not a lack of information- everyone has a strong opinion about everything already and putting them in small groups would just result in unproductive bickering.
Perhaps everyone has a strong opinion of headline candidates, like senators, presidents, governors and such. However, I think small group concensus would really improve the voting for everything else: state constitutional amendments, bonds, school board and other local administrative positions.
It seems like that would reward misinformation. You're saying that people could argue in their small group for a particular position that's not widely-known, but in most of those cases nobody will be there to argue against them, and they can say whatever they want. It would be better if people familiar with the issue voted and people unfamiliar with the issue left that blank on the ballot, instead of making it a lottery of whose supporters end up unopposed more often in small groups.
In political voting the problem is not a lack of information- everyone has a strong opinion about everything already and putting them in small groups would just result in unproductive bickering.