No, that's not how it works. You get the most heavily marketed party that pissed the least number of people off in the last couple of years.

National elections have become such a farce anyways. A single senator or representative can change the political landscape, yet a single citizen cannot. I cannot vote for Senator Wyden, nor can I vote against Feinstein. Rubio is unfazed with my voting and McConnell couldn't care less about my opinions. Yet, these handful of senators have shaped the issues that I care about to be what they are today. The best I can do is not vote for Hatch, but his death from old age seems to be the looming reason for his departure from the senate.

When someone voted in by a single state can influence the entire country like that, it makes everyone feel powerless. I'd rather give my money to a company that has my interests in mind throughout the years in exchange for products and services than dump thousands of dollars into someone's campaign like a drunken bet at a Las Vegas casino every couple of years.

You get the government the majority of voters vote for.

You also get the one the majority didn't vote for, since it's more or less indistinguishable from the one they did vote for.

Minus that whole lobbying, "corps are people (only when convenient)", and gerrymandering thing, exactly!

I'd agree if US voters actually bothered to go voting, and participated in their own democracy instead of turning their brains off and watching TV. But seeing how they don't, the US really gets the government that the most active/noisy minory supports.

(The same is largely true in the EU, even though it's possibly more pronounced the US.)