The bill of rights specifically delineates protections that apply to "people" and protections that apply to "citizens." The dialogue is often about civil rights violations of American citizens, but the original language is more often "people."
From Yick Wo v. Hopkins
The rights of the petitioners, as affected by the proceedings of which they complain, are not less because they are aliens and subjects of the emperor of China. . . . The fourteenth amendment to the constitution is not confined to the protection of citizens. It says: “Nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” These provisions are universal in their application, to all persons within the territorial jurisdiction, without regard to any differences of race, of color, or of nationality; and the equal protection of the laws is a pledge of the protection of equal laws. . . . The questions we have to consider and decide in these cases, therefore, are to be treated as involving the rights of every citizen of the United States equally with those of the strangers and aliens who now invoke the jurisdiction of the court.
Example from the other side: http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/07/kt-mcfarland-chris... With the Detroit bomber we now have a clear pattern that reveals how the Obama administration deals with terrorists – try them in civilian courts with the full rights of American citizens... The president is treating terrorists like citizens and citizens like terrorists.
Note: I've taken both these examples from an excellent Glenn Greenwald article on the subject
[1] - http://humanevents.com/2014/10/08/republican-2014-primary-tu...
But maybe not even then. You vote for the candidate that can best convince you to vote for them. So this is the metric the system will optimize for. Politicians that make good decisions or stick to their principles get outcompeted by those who focus on marketing themselves and pandering to the public. Even if you make the electorate more educated and engaged, this will only do so much to fix the misalignment of values. Unless you know a way to immunize someone to marketing completely, I see no hope for fixing voting. I infer that every democracy, as it matures, degenerates into a popularity contest.
It should be no surprise that the will of the people no longer has any real correlation with the policy voted into law by congress.
(Unless you're going to count it from 1945, in which case the real apathy hasn't started yet.)
Consistent with the golden rule of economics.
It is unlikely (and maybe even undesirable) that we are going to be able to easily overcome our inherent susceptibility to influence. Therefore if we are to improve things we must recognize that this is part of who we are, and design our institutions accordingly.
[1]: The case for "taxpayers" has been assisted by the language of "victim's rights" wherein people first accepted the idea that some citizens should have higher status before the law than others. Using the idea that paying taxes is a form of theft, taxpayers establish their victimhood and by an extension a privileged interest over ordinary citizens in matters concerning taxation. The obverse of the coin is "consumer rights" wherein buying "Little Plastic Shit" is seen as a high form of social engagement and the primary civic duty of ordinary Americans.