See this essay by Alexander Hamilton on the topic. It covers most everything, except how it morphed from (theory) "they pick the best" to (practice) "we tell them which to pick" based on state popular vote totals. Everything else still applies.
There's more, but this is the baseline understanding.
On an individual level, even if voting was fair, it always was merely an act of civic duty. The chance your one vote would swing an election was less than lightening striking. Given the opportunity costs, it made more "rational" sense to do something else.
However, if you don't vote, given the ability of data analysts to know that, they register you and vote for you. It makes it harder for them to cheat, at this point, if you do vote. Given that, I recommend voting at least in the general election.
See this essay by Alexander Hamilton on the topic. It covers most everything, except how it morphed from (theory) "they pick the best" to (practice) "we tell them which to pick" based on state popular vote totals. Everything else still applies.
There's more, but this is the baseline understanding.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed68.asp
So voting is meaningless. Got it. Had it.
On an individual level, even if voting was fair, it always was merely an act of civic duty. The chance your one vote would swing an election was less than lightening striking. Given the opportunity costs, it made more "rational" sense to do something else.
However, if you don't vote, given the ability of data analysts to know that, they register you and vote for you. It makes it harder for them to cheat, at this point, if you do vote. Given that, I recommend voting at least in the general election.