Then it should be pretty easy to undermine your democracy. Just increase the number of people per representative such that each representative has plenty of constituents that align with whomever pays most into your campaign.

And alas, USA is one of the least represented democracies in the world at 596,060 constituents per legislator. Compared to China’s 454,930, Brazil’s 353,783, South Africa’s 98,726 or France’s 71,631 constituent per legislator.

Median earners and top 1% disagree on 11% of legislation.

Of that 11%, there is a 1% chance the resulting vote aligns with the preferences of the median earner

Source?

In today's democracy you only get what you want if what you want is coincidentally the same as what their donors want.

What are some examples of legislation that has broad support among the voters adjusted for voting power, and is ignored by our representatives?

I hate to refer you to a search engine, look for any major issue where the population differs in opinion to the donor class. An obvious place to start is with healthcare, where even slight majorities of Republicans wanted it socialized (at least before 2016) but picking out issues is a waste of time. The vast majority of the public has no influence on public policy. The elite consensus becomes policy 100% of the time. If there isn't an elite consensus (on around 11% of studied issues), the median public preference is chosen 1% of the time; instead one of the elite factions not aligned with public opinion usually carries the day.

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

People's opinions are highly correlated with elite opinions, of course (because elites control what they hear, read, and see, and whether they'll progress in their careers or be employed at all), but when there's a divergence, public opinion is followed 0% of the time.

>I hate to refer you to a search engine, look for any major issue where the population differs in opinion to the donor class.

That's not what I asked. I asked for an issue supported by voters, not population. A lot of people have opinions, but not many people vote, which skews actual legislation. There's also a conservative tilt because rural voters have disproportionate power.

The populist "it's the elite and their money controlling legislation" sentiment doesn't seem to correlate with reality from what I've read.

On healthcare, the support of socialization is complicated. Voters are iffy depending on how questions are phrased, so it's not totally clear on exactly what they want. It seems something like the ACA was pretty close, but even that was very controversial.

For example, I know you can get very high approval for M4A, but if you phrase questions in a more partisan manner, approval tanks. Something along the lines of "Would you support government provided healthcare that would ban private insurance?" would poll terribly, even though they're both referring to the same policy.

I’ll do you one even better. We have a two-chamber legislature, and here is a prime example of what that actually means.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/114th-congress/house-bill/2187

Would have allowed for professionals in a given field to be accredited to make investments related to their profession. Or to put it another way, you would no longer need to already be rich to use the tools that the rich use to get richer.

The bill was passed unanimously in the house, and then quietly killed in the senate.

5 years later, we got a neutered version. Now you can make investments if you get a series 7 license, etc. But from what I understand you can’t just take the test and get the license, you need to be sponsored by an institution, but that misses the point of the original bill that represented the actual will of the people.

Do you have data to substantiate a strong majority of support for this bill among voters, and adjusted for voting power? I'd assume a lot of voters would be indifferent to this issue. It seems quite complicated. It seems it's a tradeoff between freedom and saving uniformed people from losing their money.

I'll have to look into it more though.

*uninformed

* Public option: 68% support, 18% oppose.

* Medicare for all: 55% support, 32% oppose.

* Civil asset forfeiture: 16% support, 86% oppose.

Are you citing this poll [0] for the healthcare questions because if so, I'm not sure how relevant that is. I'd bet a lot of money those support numbers drop once you throw in the nitty gritty details that actual legislation requires such as how you plan on paying for a X trillion dollar per year spending bill.

[0]: https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/medicare-for-all-publi...

These stats are from likely voters, adjusted for voting power? And could you source your stats on civil asset forfeiture?

I'm getting throttled so I might not be able to reply in a timely fashion.

Federal legalization of cannabis

That's a fairly recent phenomena. It wasn't always a popular idea but the dam might be breaking:

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/senate-democrats-unveil-long...

https://news.gallup.com/poll/356939/support-legal-marijuana-...

Source? General polls don't count either. It needs to be representative of actual voters and then adjusted for interstate voting power difference.