[PittleyDunkin]

Sure, but that makes the assumption that people vote rationally, or even in their self interest, when evidence is overwhelmingly to the contrary. And this isn't commentary on an individual party, either, or on intelligence: basically nobody is incentivized to honestly portray how a candidate might actually govern.

[CamperBob2]

Sure, but that makes the assumption that people vote rationally, or even in their self interest

If they don't, then democracy is done. Right now, thanks to the EC, a rural vote is worth more than anyone else's. If you're right, then the rest of us had better find a way to disenfranchise them, and soon.

So... are you sure you're right?

[PittleyDunkin]

I don't really want to comment on the merits of democracy, how to implement democracy, or how to measure how much democracy is being done. I'm just pointing out you can't read much from what people want from how they vote when what they actually want (or need) is basically absent from the conversation to begin with.

EDIT: Obviously I don't have solid data that what people want isn't discussed, but the general metabolism of US politics appears to be: newspapers, cable news, and podcasts raise an issue (which may or may not be relevant), and that's what politicians respond to. I typed a lot more illustrating how this is at best tangentially related to what people want to see change, but I'm not trying to rehash the communication dysfunction of this country.