This is from an initial portion of a book I am presently writing, to be published somewhere on the Internet.
Actually a real democracy would be a really great thing. All the people would study just enough about the issues to elect other people who would study the issues full-time and make sound decisions. However, as things stand today (and in all the past), the people never really get to elect anybody, but rather they merely get to choose between two bosses who are mere tools of a cabal of shadow government pirates. Anyone who has "gone to the polls" a few times has to eventually become at least dimly aware that at the end of the day their nominal participation has, 99% of the time, counted for absolutely nothing.
So, since they are all but completely powerless, it is totally irrational for ordinary citizens to devote any of their valuable time to any serious study of any political issues. Other than as a sort of casual hobby, it is a foolish waste of your time to do that. So the ordinary citizen cannot be faulted for being effectively oblivious to the true nature of the various political issues.
Under the terms of the present U.S. regime, which uses single-selection voting (also absurdly called "plurality" or "first past the post" voting), the elections for members of the House of Representatives, and perhaps for the presidency, would have significant potential to provide voter power if the voting systems were structured in a proper manner. But as things currently stand, they most certainly do not. And this disaster is completely due to the existence of something called the "spoiler effect". As an obvious example, consider the 2000 presidential election in Florida between George W. Bush, Al Gore, and Ralph Nader. To many people, Nader was seen as a great candidate, while Bush was seen in a light not unlike how Hillary Clinton appeared in 2016, a clear abomination. Yet many voted for Gore, since to do otherwise would increase the risk of a Bush election (although Bush won anyway, and we had 9/11, social lockdown, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc.). So the existence of this spoiler effect means that we cannot have any realistic choices except between two bosses pre-selected by the shadow government pirates.
I have discussed the strategic hedge simple score voting method in many places. With this you get to give, say, between 5 and 10 votes to each of as many candidates as you prefer. This would destroy the two-party system. Obviously the common voters must vote strategically since the shadow government pirates will always operate strategically. The whole "voting systems" / "election methods" field is a gigantic mess, sprawling over at least 100 pages of Wikipedia, for example. And I have written hundreds of pages about this subject. The insane complexity, futility, and excessiveness of the various odd methods, "criteria", and whatnot proposed by this "industry" amounts to a conspiracy. It always treats extremely consequential elite interest elections just as if they were merely casual hobby club elections.
In reality, elections are not primarily contests between individual candidates -- They are contests between common voters and shadow government pirates -- And this is just what the election methods industry always completely ignores.
For instance, one division of the election methods (or "social choice") industry called "FairVote" has convinced the U.S. Green Party to throw its entire weight behind a very well-advertised election method known as "IRV" (a.k.a. "ranked choice voting"). This "IRV" sounds wonderful, yet wherever it is used the common voters always lose and the shadow government pirates always win. And it's very worthwhile to note who provides the funding for FairVote:
This should not be surprising.