> What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? Have you noticed how few people actually vote? When

> What you mean "no longer beholden to the people"? If nobody votes for them, how they get into the office? Have you noticed how few people actually vote? When there are only two parties and neither is particularly appealing, people just don't vote. > I do not blame abstract "the wealthy" for it, I blame specific people of California being stupid. Then you would be wrong. The wealthy support marijuana being illegal. It results in increased revenue for the alcohol and tobacco industries, increased revenue for the for-profit privatized prison industry, and it results in more money for government contractors that get funneled money via DEA contracts. The wealthy are in better placed to get their policies in place than the poor, because they can influence politicians even when there aren't elections coming up. The only chance the poor have of influencing politics is when there's an election coming up, and those elections aren't structured such that they're very effective. > But try to think why it is profitable - who gives the politicians the power that they are selling and lobbyists are buying? The answer is - you do. No, they do not. You still fail to understand the basic problems with our current electoral system, which limits us to two parties. When there is no competition in the electoral system, politicians can be influenced in other ways.