Thing is, you are essentially electing the same guy, regardless of who you vote for. I still vote, but know good and well it is all a big game, as the two opponents aren't really opponents at all. Our system has degenerated into a system that allows the masses to feel good about "their guy winning", while "their guy" or the opponent will pretty much keep the same overall direction ongoing, while distracting the voters with lesser, contentious social issues. Well, that is they distract those who care enough to even pay attention to any of it.
I'll vote, but I won't vote for anyone. Never have in my 23 years of voting. We are a failed system where we vote for the opponent of the (disconnected) guy we like least out of the two (disconnected) candidates....who aren't about to change what's really wrong with our nation. It sucks, but the nation "for the people, by the people" died a long, long time ago. Let's not kid ourselves.
I generally agree with you and at the same time I try to be realistic. I don't think that at any time, any place in human history there was a government, a leader that truly represented the people and not his interests or the interests of certain powerful people.
Take the man in your signature for example. Did he ask the British people whether they wanted to embark in another world war for the sake of Poland? Perhaps it was the right thing to do, or not, regardless, he took the Great Empire to a war and after it was all done, he was left with an island. Some consider him a great statesman.
What does all this mean? In my opinion it means that when you put people in charge, they are in charge not you and you can only hope to influence things a little bit.
That's reality.