Some people make the case of voting for leaders based on relatability to life experiences—a from grass to grace life experience. However, I wonder why that can be the basis for voting anyone into office—the relatability to their rise from relative obscurity. It should be ridiculous for a people to mediocrity and it's fruits of perpetual failure to this as its best alternative leadership.

Doesn't this appeal to only a portion of the electorate and alienate those who see no relatability? If no real policies are the basis, again, doesn't the appeal to a specific majority—if prevalent in an election—become their tyranny against the indifferent minority?