That's not entirely true. You may not live in SF but only work in SF. In this situation you have no say in SF government because your voting rights are based on where you stay and not where you work. Maybe there needs to be a way to better distribute your vote? If you're in a place for about 1/2 your waking hours of the week, maybe you should get a say in the government of that place?

Edit: This is a situation with most metro areas. Definitely with Chicago where there is a large contingent of folks who commute from the suburbs.

As H.L. Mencken put it, "Democracy is the theory that the people know what they want, and that they deserve to get it, good and hard."

People generally only elect what they find to be the least detestable of the faux-representatives that their party strategists and financial backers put forth.

It's possible for harmful but popular policy to go forward with no one but your average constituent to blame, but when every option is a different set of false promises and failures to execute, and "the discourse" is driven mostly by dollar-driven propagandists, it's hard to place the blame for dysfunctional government on voters generally.

People generally only elect what they find to be the least detestable of the faux-representatives that their party strategists and financial backers put forth.

It's possible for harmful but popular policy to go forward with no one but your average constituent to blame, but when every option is a different set of false promises and failures to execute, and "the discourse" is driven mostly by dollar-driven propagandists, it's hard to place the blame for disfunctional government on voters generally.

That assumes no corruption. Hard to partake in the democratic process when kickbacks and bought votes exist.