That’s … reductionist, any voter that attempts to find a representative for a non-party line cause gets gaslit by rapid partisans about hating women or a marginalized group because its not their top cause guiding all voting decisions.
voters dont have control of their representatives either way
No it's not reductionist, it's the truth. Reductionist would be different, for example if it implied that change is impossible, or that voters will always stay the same, or that there is a guaranteed inevitability, etc...
Maybe your reading your own thoughts into someone else?
If you genuinely believe voters have literally no control over their representatives in the US, I highly doubt you would spend time writing comments on HN about pharmaceutical pricing and not on more important matters.
The reason they still do so is because the majority of voters aren’t too bothered by it.