candidates do what their constituents want or they don’t get elected
You are living in a dream world then. Candidates do what the money tells them to do – and it’s been this way for 40+ years, exacerbated by the Citizens United decision. That’s a huge part of the problem. But if the voter base had a clue in the first place, we would have better people in office by now. So yes, it comes down to idiot uneducated voters.
So you understand that the candidates do not represent the voters, but you still feel the voters have some obligation to vote for a candidate that does not represent them, and they cannot influence.
How do you reconcile these two thoughts?
Personally I just provide the analysis that “dems need to do <thing people want> to get elected”, don’t vote dem because they never do those things, and work for local orgs that occasionally make a difference.
You are living in a dream world then. Candidates do what the money tells them to do – and it’s been this way for 40+ years, exacerbated by the Citizens United decision. That’s a huge part of the problem. But if the voter base had a clue in the first place, we would have better people in office by now. So yes, it comes down to idiot uneducated voters.
I wish you luck in your endeavors.
So you understand that the candidates do not represent the voters, but you still feel the voters have some obligation to vote for a candidate that does not represent them, and they cannot influence.
How do you reconcile these two thoughts?
Personally I just provide the analysis that “dems need to do <thing people want> to get elected”, don’t vote dem because they never do those things, and work for local orgs that occasionally make a difference.