"Elected officials do what they think the voters want (as affirmed by getting re-elected)."

should be:

"Elected officials do what corporate sponsors want and say that they are doing what voters want (as affirmed by getting campaign finance donations by corporate sponsors to help them get re-elected)."

> It's difficult to see how voters can compete with this, particularly while info about these routine arrangements rarely reaches voters.

Exactly. This puts elected government officials in the role of the Dungeons and Dragons Warlock class:

"Warlock patrons are powerful entities that grant mortals access to their power in exchange for a pact that binds the warlock to their patron's will." [1]

They serve at the pleasure of their patron which means they are not serving "we the people".

It is legalized corruption that puts profits and power above people and the good of the nation.

[1] https://www.thegamer.com/dungeons-and-dragons-dnd-roleplay-w...

It defined someone with a full time job and the option to take some time off to vote on a Tuesday without economic cost a voting power of 1.0V (i.e. One Vote) and went on to define people with full time hourly job where it 'cost' them to vote as .85V, down to single caregivers and unhoused people at 0.5V. On the other side of the scale people in management as 2V (they influence people who work for them to vote like they do), senior leadership at 10V (they have "extra" money to fund additional campaign activities to drive votes), and above that 50V for people who aren't constrained by "work." I would guess billionaires would be 100V or something.

This was in response to a anti-gerrymandering legislation where defining a district to have more voting power for your party while still having an even distribution of individuals representing different parties. Pretty evil IMHO.

They can tell pollsters whatever they want. And what the candidates hear, and what I hear, is how they vote. If they're sending that politician back, then they can't disapprove all that much.