The little man is told he has all the control but really he is along for the ride. The big man plots the course and convinces the little man their interests are shared when they may not be.
This is cynical thinking that causes corruption and incompetence to thrive. People have a say in their government but often refuse to use it for good. That's how bad leaders get into power.
Many countries continually elect smart and competent leaders and become prosperous, but some people have somehow convinced themselves that they have no say in politics, meaning they don't care when their system rots with horrible leadership.
This cynical thinking is what has ruined many third-world countries, and I hate to see it propagated.
That's the deal in the USofA at least; that has an antiquated first past the post systm that has ossified into a two party non representative standoff.
By comparison Australia has a relatively fresh preferential voting system based on a hybrid "Washminster" system that can see sitting heads of government (Prime Ministers) ousted and scrappy kids from housing estates rise to the head job.
No system is perfect. Some systems are less desirable than others. All systems need regular shaking out. No, that doesn't require guns (if sensibly designed as systems).
Even without fptp the system is rotten as its dependent on campaigning. My local mayor race was also "bad" in a sense. It started with like a dozen candidates which meant the vote was split between many people who had about the same sort of platform with little to distinguish them beyond a few instances of social media based muckraking perhaps, then there was the frontrunner supported by the democratic establishment and its donors and the closest competitor which was a self financed billionaire. These two went to a run off election in the fall and the democratic party endorsed candidate won, and practically it couldn't have happened any other way than that outcome.
Remove campaign financing by donors and ban advertising. Have the local election commission mail out policy positions of the various candidates funded by a small fee paid by these candidates (less than five thousand or so such that it isn't gate kept through wealth; most anyone can get that amount money on credit if they don't have it today). Then maybe we can consider the election process actually a little bit unbiased and not predetermined by monied interests.
Of course, people who benefit from donor financed campaigning and playing on emotion vs rational action would probably sooner compare this to the election system in Cuba, and it would never see the light of day.
Low level (small city mayors) campaigns tend to be a mess as there's often little public interest and much "vested" interest (concrete curb manufacturers want fat city contracts, etc).
Here we double down on honesty with punishment - campaign donations must be declared (with fines and potential jail if not), advertising is capped (max hours per medium) and tied to a person who vouches for the ad .. and can be held responsible for delibrate untruths, going for the family, etc.
It's similar but perhaps with stronger guiderails .. and like the US voting in "small" local elections isn't mandatory.
Voting in state and federal elections is compulsary - turning up to vote | mailing in a vote is mandatory - it's 100% OK to mail | hand in a blank vote, a pencilled in candidate, a rant against government, a crude drawing of dick and balls, etc.
That sorts out the "but I don't like any of the candidates" crowd and makes them easy to count - it also sorts out the problem of systemic disenfranchisement by making it hard for those who work on voting day, those who have insufficent booths in area, etc. The onus is on the system to ensure that everybody can vote - by mail, with time off, with available locations and short lines, etc.
