Passage Summary: People say they want the government to leave them alone, but they won't vote for a politician who sits around doing nothing. Since 'doing something' usually means passing more laws, voters end up reelecting the very people who do the things they complain about.

Conclusion: Voters frequently end up reelecting politicians whose legislative actions they actually dislike or resent.

Reasoning: Voters claim to hate government intervention but refuse to vote for 'inactive' politicians, even though a politician's 'activity' almost always results in more intervention.

Analysis: The statement that people tend not to reelect inactive politicians functions as a premise in this argument. It provides the necessary link to explain why the voters' actions (reelecting active politicians) contradict their stated preferences (disliking intervention). I identified this as a premise because it supports the final conclusion about the irony of voter behavior. It's a classic human dynamic: we say we want one thing, but our requirements for 'leadership' often force the opposite outcome.