He has been in control for what, one week? I would examine your own political leanings and motivations for wanting this assertion to be true
I have no political leanings, and I'm not particularly interested in the fate of Twitter.
I'm there, I find it instructive, I've learned quite a bit about my areas of interest by reading what other people write on Twitter. I used to tweet more, but I realized that to contribute meaningfully you have to have a position and personality traits that I don't possess.
I am rather incredulous at this statement but if you are being truthful, please help me arrive at this same locality. The closest I can manage is all of my political leanings are derivative of those who raised me. I wish I could be more neutral, objective from my own observation, existence.
Mathematically it (very likely) won't change anything, and you'll find over time that you're not as "team ball" invested in things (because at least the US political system is entirely a massive game theory simulation).
And then try as hard as you can to steelman the opposite position to one you hold (and that people actually hold the opposite of) - you don't have to agree with it but you should be able to identify the priors that cause disagreement, and not resort to "that side is evil/dumb/insane".
And after awhile you'll see lots of similarities and be able to identify them (when people are not arguing to search for truth or the best option, but are arguing for their side or to prove to their side that they are ON their side).
Possibly the best outcome is getting enough people that would elect politicians that would enact new voting systems like ranked choice and move away from a two party system that will eventually collapse this country in extremism. Just don't blindly and willingly accept that the two party system is the only choice. And do not let an objectively evil person win because you want to remain neutral, cause your neutrality is gone if they get elected.
What do you mean by control? I mean if you mean "They don't point a gun at people and tell them how to vote" then few people do (see Russia for an example of that). If instead you mean "They get on social media and tell people not to vote" then they have some control in the form of advertising. You have no idea what they are in charge of and any assignment of blame.
No snowflake blames itself for the avalanche
I think the call to vote because otherwise this wins, that loses, is similar in spirit to the fallacious attempt to use some sort of big-society framework to "stop homosexuality."
I think the act of voting is one of the ways in which someone can contribute to society. Other ways are, for example, offering a smile, money or physical help, depending on the situation, to others in a time of need; it is perhaps contributing to the education of the disadvantaged; it is being a good citizen; and many other contributions are possible. It is not necessary to do everything all the time.
I share this sentiment and can't figure out why politicians aren't better stewards of the peoples' interest. The primary philosophy guiding me at this point is bias against incumbency, on the premise that including more citizens in the political process is worthwhile, like voting.
In part, it's the nature of the job, one has to overpromise--since they are voted for something they will do, not something they did, although that may inform what they will do--and then, by definition, underdeliver. Which means first lying and then trying not to get caught, or using one of the varieties of the "things have changed" defense. Unsavory behaviors, no doubt about it.
I like to watch on YouTube some old political debates (60s, 70s, 80s) that used to take place in my country and one of the many things I noticed is that, yes, charisma and speed of thought were important, but there was substance behind the positions politicians took. My point is not an "oh, the old days" kind of observation; back then there were many terribly incompetent or outright rogue politicians, but the quality of the median politicians was considerably better.
Probably because a good steward politician is the easiest to beat with bog-standard tactics.
The closest you might find these days are politicians that their own side is always yelling at; they're likely from a secure seat and can take the blame when needed.
THE major component for public involvement in politics are parties. In theory being a unit transcending election cycle they can better ensure continuity of policy. In practice, like any enterprise, the fundamental goal of parties is to remain in power, everything else being secondary.
The goal is always to get votes. Sometimes in the short term, sometimes in the long term, but it is never about policy and always about votes and subsequent power. Parties do not promote and give platform to "good politicians", but rather those who will help the party sustain power and gain more, not overthrow current lords.
If you feel represented by someone on the ballot it is simple coincidence at best and result of politics at worst. This is how politics have worked, do work and will work, by design.