> Maybe we should vote for people who are financially literate, can think long term, and can "conserve" rather than politicians who promise endlessly?

Who could you vote for, in any democracy, that would fit this?

Also, how many voters would have the wherewithal to identify such a person?

Some green parties. Their primary goals might seem unrelated, but turns out caring for the environment and climate change is correlated with long-term thinking.

Note I said "some", before rushing to mention all the examples of green parties engaging in misguided policies. Those also exist

In the anglosphere it's more difficult because first-past-the-post voting makes such parties unlikely to succeed or be relevant

I believe voters are unfortunately useless.

In my country people voted in a party as majority that, not once left their terms peacefully in the past. AFTER our genZ ousted the other party, that came to power as a majority 17 years ago, changed constituency and controlled the parliament using majority, and turned into an autocracy

Now this party is shaping everything up using their majority for their favor (no surprise), ignoring all the agreements agreed upon by all the parties before election, under the interim government.

All those blood, deaths, injuries are wasted.

I think democracy is perhaps a fundamentally unstable system. It requires constant corrective force, and a lot of it, from a lot of people. When the members of that democracy start to get a little too comfortable it fails.

Humans are designed to operate in smallish clans with benevolent dictators whose right to rule is based on social currency with people they personally know. Anything else is a house of cards on unstable foundation.

I'm not sure how you fix that, but democracy so far has maybe been the least bad patch.

conservatives?