What if the politicians who represent financiers were simply to choose a people to vote for them?

“Politicians can pick their voters, thanks to the Supreme Court,” June 27, 2019, https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/27/opinion/gerrymandering-supreme-court.html#commentsContainer:

Indeed, politicians and their parties do choose their voters, and this is one of several ways in which this country has surreptitiously become less democratic.  

We voters do not choose the people we elect, because we don't pay them.  Campaign donors do, along with lobbyists, representing mostly corporate interests or topical interest groups that are organized like corporate lobbies.  (This includes labor unions, which have ceased almost all forms of combativeness to serve as auxiliary associations for the company their members work at).  

The semblance of democracy in voting and elsewhere serves mainly the purpose of legitimation.  As do the rarely highly reasoned discussions that are often found on Facebook, whose purpose is actually to market people their own niche with its contents and keep them there.  

Nor does it help that we vote for individuals rather than members of political parties, and so for personalities rather than ideology.  The role of advertising and PR in politics is surely partly a function of the role of single-issue interest groups.  

We should return critical thinking and writing skills to the schools, and get big money, and maybe all money, out of politics,  so that your vote has an aggregate effect greater than someone's else cash.  

Then we might depend less on unelected judges to make our most important decisions.  The function the Court has of thinking very carefully, to solve the problems laws become, could be broadened: imagine a republic that thinks.