> You've simplified this way too much, as if each voter only has one issue that they care about. Political strategists are experts at game theory. They build political platforms based on how to get the most people off their couches per dollar. It is a multi-dimensional problem.

I don't think I have. Blatant breaches of something that voters perceive to be a fundamental right of theirs should be a dealbreaker; I am fairly sure that a candidate whose otherwise great agenda would include items like stoping state financing of any educational institution, explicitly forbidding any kind of health care for patients over fifty (you can pick any criteria here), explicitly introducing media censorship or punishing adherence to Catholicism with jail wouldn't get too many votes from mentally-sane voters.

It sounds fairly logical to assume that most American citizens are ignorant enough about their dignity, the meaning of being human or about who they are voting for that they don't perceive acts of support for such breaches of their rights to be a dealbreaker.

I'm not saying this is good or bad -- Americans seem to be happy enough not to do much about it, so if it floats their boat, it's awesome -- I'm just arguing that it is representative for them.