You contradict yourself. You literally just said that everyone has equal political power, but rich people have more political power. Rich people aren't influential because they have a lot of friends. Rich people are influential because they have a lot of money.

Isn't it because the wealthy and influential can donate/raise huge sums of money for politician's superpac and help them win elections term after term and stay in power for decades?

To get rid of that incentive you need to advocate for separating government from economy, in the same manner and for the same reason why state is supposed to be separated from church in a modern secular society. No lobbying from economic players and no government intervention into economics.

If government is responsible for running common infrastructure, just by their choice of which infra to grow or let decay, they are affecting economy. If government is responsible for social welfare (for the poor), they are affecting economy. If government is collecting taxes, by their choice of what to tax how much etc, they are affecting economy. If you take economic affections away from the government, what remains with the government?

> If you take economic affections away from the government, what remains with the government?

Enforcing civil laws and contractual obligations, court system, police, and army.

With gerrymandering of districts votes are diluted or concentrated specifically to create imbalance of each vote being equal.

They pander to wealthy and influential because they will receive donations in unlimited amounts for such pandering. If they don't, they'll be primaried out by that spending being directed toward another candidate willing to pander.