No, this is a line of reasoning that leads to something different than what we got, which could be authoritarianism, or could be a better democracy... or we could try sortition, eliminating the role of the politician, entirely.

This was established in the Federalist Papers, that democracy works when the constituent a) knows their personal best interests and b) votes accordingly. In fact much of the post Southern Strategy GOP movement towards authoritarianist domination of the federal theater has been focused on getting constituents to vote against their own best interests, whether in favor of vibes or towards single issues (e.g. abortion access, gun control) or based on cultural pressure (liberalism = communism).

There are many directions we can go to make the system more democratic, many of which include moving away from FPTP elections (which promote a two party system, making third parties untenable) but we've also had some success in actually educating the constituency and instilling in them a sense of duty to do their civic homework and know what they're voting for.

If people didn't respond to these, then Trump would have won in November 2024 by a much wider margin than fractions of percents spread across several battleground states, and he wouldn't have needed the support of the EC and gerrymandering to give the illusion of a mandate. The GOP and its vibes-based voting system is propped up by a trillion-dollar propaganda machine to keep Americans uninformed and believing in the Joe Rogan way of life.

If that's the best that democracy can do, I will be the first to dispose of it for something better. But I believe democracy can absolutely do better.