No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.
We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.
If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.
If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.
It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.
No? No. Democracy, functional or not, has no direct determining power on what candidates cater to. What democracy does is select the winning candidate, regardless of who the candidate caters to.
We may be a flawed democracy with candidates that cater to the elites, but we’re still a democracy and we still pick the winner.
You’re describing an oligarchy with extra steps, not Democracy.
If democracy doesn’t work for the majority of people, and your party runs on ‘rescuing’ that same democracy while at the same time villinaising the people that do want to improve the people’s economic conditions, you’re not going to be winning elections.
If you want to rescue democracy, you need to show that democracy can work for people, it’s the same mistake Weimar Germany made.
It’s hard to elect one person that works for the majority of the people. The majority of the people aren’t a homogenous group. Not everybody agrees on which policies are the best.
There’s a huge range of policies that poll in the 80-90% range that neither party wants to touch because they upset the donor class.