electrons move very slow, it is not the flow of electrons that create the current. Against conventional believes. Any varying signal travels are EM wave. The voltage and current you measure is the consequence of the the boundary condition of the EM wave. As
[tex]\nabla \times \vec B = \mu \vec J +\mu \frac {\partial D}{\partial t} \;\hbox { AND }\; \nabla \cdot \vec E = \frac {\rho_{free}}{\epsilon}[/tex]
BUT this is too abstract to work with, using current and voltage is just as good as long as you understand that ultimately is the EM wave that propagates in any of the circuit.
Yes, this is hard to swallow, but if you look at any circuit, there is always a forward path where signal travel to AND a return path that the signal has to return to it's source. The two path form a guided structure. eg. a trace on a pcb with ground plane is actually a microstrip, an electric wire from the hot wire through the light bulb and the neutral forms a two wire transmission line...hopefully they are parallel to each other to form a parallel wire tx line. It might be easier to think of like Ratch said you push in an electron into one end and one got bumped out on the other end. But it is EM wave as it travel with velocity:
[tex]v=\frac 1 {\sqrt { \mu \epsilon}} = \frac 1 {\sqrt{LC}}[/tex]
As you can see, the speed ABSOLUTELY obey the EM propagation. Also we use transmission line theory in RF for all the circuit design.
Yes, people gone out of their way to use magnetics, current and all to make it simpler. But sorry, science is not meant to be simple. I am not good with quantum mechanics, ultimately there is not even magnetic field, it is all electric from my understanding. Magnetic field is only a term given when the electric field of the two wire move at slightly different velocity or something and start to repel...This is way out of my league. But bottom line, electronics always try to use very simplified notation to explain to the point that it really can get thin at times. You ask the question, and this is a very unpleasant answer. Look into it if you really want, go the the classical or quantum physics section and ask this question.
Believe me, even KVL has holes, I spent a whole Christmas argue in the Classical Physic section against the MIT professor's assertion. You have to be very very careful with all the Thevenin, Norton, Mesh....not everyone if any can hold up in physics point of view. It is not that simple.