True. But the fault lies not with the electorate, but with the would-be poobahs who have spent four decades convincing people that the market is driven by demand and government runs on automatic when, in fact, our democracy, as spelled out in the Constitution, responds to demand.
Indeed, is not supposed to interfere with natural persons unless asked. What happened is that, from the very beginning, the commercial class understood that. So, the corporations (artificial bodies) they organized had no problem making demands and getting their special interests met, even as most of the citizenry (women, juveniles, migrants, servants) were left out of consideration. Finally, in the nineteen sixties, the overlooked demanded not only the right to carry out their civic obligations, but to supervise governmental operations via FOIA and public meeting requirements. It is my guess that, when change was legislated, it was under the assumption that wives would continue subservient to their husbands, youths would remain under parental control and the vast majority would continue to ignore what the bureaucracy was up to: serving their corporate constituents as before.
But it did not work out that way. Oh, for a while, voters were placid and the low turnout was something to crow about. The major political parties presumed to take over the parent role. Republicans became the “Father knows best” proponents while Democrats organized to give women a formal role, while minorities were encouraged to organize “clubs.” The party formally discouraged multiple candidates. Still does. Party poobahs have the same mindset as the appointeds and electeds. Children are not supposed to question their elders.