> Ballots are insanely complicated and there’s absolutely zero knowledge the average person has about whether any of the people are good candidates.
You can say this with a straight face about the presidential election because it's a statistical tie. But it's laughable at the municipal/county level. Even at the state level it's often not true-- e.g., in Ohio were savvy enough to reject a marijuana legalization referendum (which they overwhelmingly wanted!) because it would have given a tiny cartel control over growing it. That caveat wasn't in the text of the referendum IIRC, so somehow a majority of Ohioans defeated it using their "absolutely zero knowledge" of the inner workings of that proposed law.
> So then they turn to their favorite voting guides which just shifts the power to unaccountable political groups instead of making the single representative you elect responsible for figuring it out.
There's a human web of trust lots of voters use to navigate the complexity of voting. The more local you get the more effective it is. At the municipal level there's a chance you're web includes the people directly involved in an issue, in addition to people who can help you judge the veracity of those people!
> And there’s too many elections - non presidential year elections give the power to a motivated and vocal minority which is not what you want because it lets shit stirrers seize control when no one is paying attention.
Sounds like you're hedging here-- what exactly does "give the power to" mean? If you're saying that special interests have more power to slip in corrupting legislation or install lackeys during an off-year, that's definitely not true. The worst stuff gets passed through when there's a lot of noise to cover it-- like presidential elections or national disasters.