You think that the root issue is the majority of people who (according to you) have no idea how the system works, and thus are not at all involved in the system itself? How on earth does that make sense?
I think you are underestimating the ignorance of public. Take poll of people. Most won't know that you have to wait years to get a trial. Most won't know that the majority of cases never make it to trial and are resolved plea deals (some of which are innocent people pleading guilty to avoid sitting in jail because they can't afford bail). Most won't know their civil rights (ask them about Brady vs MD, Miranda, the 4th ammendment, etc). How many do you think understand jury nullification?
These people fund the system through their taxes. They sit on juries. They elect people who commit abuses and allow abuses to happen. Even the ones who have been a victim of the system may not know it, the extent that it is common, or the other parts of the system they have not experienced.
For example, you could have a summary offense filed against you and the officer might amend the charge at the trial. If you aren't given a continuance, then it could violate your rights. If the change was made because the officer made a mistake and you didn't realize/understand it, if he will possible lie to the judge and say the change was for leniency (concealment of exculpatory evidence). At the very least, you wouldn't witness prison conditions for most summary offenses. For reference, approximately 8% of the population has been convicted of a felony and less than half of them have served time in prison. So the people with firsthand prison experience will be quite low (guessing less than 10%, but couldn't find those numbers).
https://www.nytimes.com/1991/12/15/us/poll-finds-only-33-can...
So while individuals have relatively little effect on policy creation, you are completely leaving out their participation in policy execution - a major component of my argument. People can file complaints against bad officers or judges. People can file lawsuits when their rights have been infringed (look at policies that were enacted and the payouts against police departments in big cities). People can generate a combined effect on policy creation through voting. An easy way to view this would be to ask yourself what policy changes should take effect if one party or the other took full government control as this requires individual participation as voters and would likely lead to lawsuits against those new policies.
"I bet it makes software engineers in Seattle or SF feel very good about themselves when they can blame the woes of society on the median income household, but maybe you should try to go after people who actually have an impact."
You complain about invalid premises yet you engage in ad hominem fallacies? I wouldn't presume to know what devs in those areas think. I think it's also a stretch to claim that anyone is blaming the median income households - plenty of higher income people are ignorant of the problems as they are disproportionately unaffected.
People don’t dig into things that don’t affect them that much. And when the problem is on the news, it’s justified through cognitive dissonance with “they probably did something to deserve it”
So you claim that businesses drive the candidates and that it's a problem? If that is really the case, then you are arguing against yourself. The true power is people being able to vote and to create their own parties (protected in numerous laws and court decisions). Then the poor candidate choices would be the result of ignorance on the part of the citizens in not self organizing or seeing what is going on.
"business interests and a couple of large political parties"
Who comprises these institutions? People!
"But some people are just too comfortable to understand such things."
Your arguments would be more effective if you focused on creating coherent arguments rather than consistently engaging in ad hominem attacks.