The adage is perfectly reasonable when you recognize that influence in government comes not from popularity but from money. I always refer back to the Cambridge

The adage is perfectly reasonable when you recognize that influence in government comes not from popularity but from money. I always refer back to the Cambridge study that correlated money to legislation and that citizens will has no impact on what becomes law[1]. So yes, there are lambs being served up for dinner by wolves, but its not that there are more wolves than lambs - the lambs simply don't get to have a say. THAT is why inequality is so detrimental to society. When money buys influence, and a few dozen men can wield as much as half of everyone else, only their desires matter. Everyone else is functionally unrepresented. [1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-politics/article/testing-theories-of-american-politics-elites-interest-groups-and-average-citizens/62327F513959D0A304D4893B382B992B/core-reader https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...