alansmithee

I was just wondering what other people's views were on a discussion some of my friends were having earlier. It started with debating straight-party voting, and then moved on to this.
Alot has been made about voter turnout. Many celebrities, politicians, civic leaders, issue groups, and others have been telling everyone to get out and vote. It is being stressed how it's your civic duty, you need to have a voice, your decision counts, etc. I have been thinking for awhile, is this really good? Now, I have no different solution, and this idea might actually belong more in philosophy, but I thought I would try here first.

It seems to me that many of the people voting aren't really informed about the truth in issues. I was saying to someone that I don't believe in straight-party voting, and as we were discussing he was saying he just votes what his union tells him to. He said he dosen't have the time to actually read up on issues, see how reps vote, etc. so he used the union to decide. He also said it was better than just getting information from ads, which can often be biased or flat-out wrong. And even many "news" sources show bias or don't report the correct facts.

This got me thinking, is it really good having numerous people who are misinformed deciding important issues? To make an economic comparison, for a free market to succeed, there must be perfect information. If any participant has flawed information, a free market breaks down. Why would politics be any difference? Aren't politics a "free market of ideas"? I personally am starting to think that all the effort being spent on getting the most people to the polls be better spent on making sure that those who do vote are well informed. I don't see this happening, simply because presenting unbiased info will get your candidate/party less votes than simply getting the most people to show up and vote how you want. But I think that the idea might have merit, and would like to hear other people's positions.