The solution is reversing Citizen's United, when the Supreme Court held 5-4 that campaign contributions represented "freedom of speech" and could not be limited. In a literal sense, Citizen's United enshrined the idea that your voice (and vote) are proportional to the amount of money you can bring to bear.

One of the lessons I've taken from this case and others related to gerrymandering and voter suppression, for instance, is how deeply the integrity our democracy depends on tactical execution of the broader ideals at stake. It's our ability to handle issues at the margin that will determine whether the whole thing works or falls apart.

Citizen's United affirmed that an individual's rights to make political speech isn't lost when that individual forms a corporation for the sole purpose of amplifying that speech.

It's equivalent (this isn't an analogy, it's literally equivalent) to allowing a person to spend money to buy a megaphone to make their speech literally louder than everyone else's. Not everyone can afford a megaphone.

> I've voted in every election I since I turned 18 and nothing seems to have been done about this and many other things.

It is also possible that the majority doesn't feel (read: vote) the same way about these issues as you. Would that mean that the system is flawed?

Results clearly indicate that isn't the case. EG the 2000 and 2016 elections.

The level of cognitive dissonance the public has about politics is the most disheartening part of the whole burning shit show. Remember America; It's your own fault if he beats you, you made him do it.

How do those two elections show that? Because of the popular vote in the presidential elections? Don't forget that our representatives (the people who actually are responsible for legislation) are voted in directly. No electoral college for them.