It is a rare politician of any persuasion that stands to benefit other than themselves, their funders and their friends.

Political representation is a mess, not least because only those will great financial support have any real chance of election and also because of an essential adversarial two-party system.

If politicians truly stood to benefit the people, then they would all work together to determine and implement what are the most prudent & potentially beneficial policies for all.

Yes, some would still be better off than others but, if all politicians were truly seeking to benefit all, then inequity would reduce and homelessness, poverty and so on would not be countenanced and no-one would suffer it.

It is also decidedly inadequate that those who make decisions affecting the nation need meet no essential performance criteria or show any evidence of worth to hold such powerful positions. In virtually every other occupation, any position of responsibility, (and many that have little or none), require applicants to demonstrate their suitability and ability to carry out the duties of the position capably. Yet, politicians, responsible for the well-being of the nation need demonstrate nothing at all.

Yes, I understand the ethos behind the myth that 'anyone can become President'. However, even were it true, oughtn't they still have to demonstrate both moral conscience and ethical integrity, at the very least?

That the nation can elect a man who lacks either, Donald Trump, to 'lead' the nation and that all but one of a major party can vote along party lines to protect him, despite his clear perfidy and absence of conscience or ability to treat others with respect, is just one indicator, (though a serious one), of how imperfect the electoral system is and how our law makers can be self-interested, ideologically deluded and/or intellectually deficit.

It doesn't take the proverbial 'rocket scientist' to see what's wrong or how to fix it.