This article says that most voters are clueless.

''Particularly significant is the fact that, on many issues, the majority is not only ignorant of the truth, but actively misinformed. For example, 61 percent believe that there has been a net loss of jobs in 2004, 58 percent believe that the administration sees a link between Saddam Hussein and 9-11, and 57 percent believe that increases in domestic spending have not contributed significantly to the current federal budget deficit.''

It's amazing that Bush is doing as well as he is, when you consider this.

I doubt that this is a new phenomenon, but I'm concerned (as always) about this big push to get people to vote (like the foolish "motor voter" law) without an accompanying push to educate them to the point that they can do so responsibly. Fortunately, most of them still don't make it to the polls.

Public education is accomplishing its goals...

Hi,

We have compulsory voting in Australia and I doubt Australian voters are any more informed then American one. the result is stable, right of centre governments. In the 28 years I have been old enough to vote we have only changed government twice.

ta

Ralph

Politicians of a certain stripe prefer ignorant voters, just the way most trial lawyers prefer ignorant jurors. An informed voter (or juror) is unreliable, too independent, not as likely to be moved by a 30-second pitch to base prejudices or unsupported sliming of the other side.

"It's amazing that Bush is doing as well as he is, when you consider this."

I don't understand how you draw that conclusion. Some of the mistakes that voters are making favor Bush and some favor Kerry.

GO SOX!!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

The voters at large are supposed to be ignorant. Thats why we have an electoral college to bail us out in case we elect Mickey Mouse into office through the popular vote.

I've been more or less concerned about the congressional voting. I'm pretty sure George is a shoe in for the presidential election. I'm just wondering if its possible at all that a Democratic congress will be put in to better keep George in check.

It's very unlikely that there will be much change in the composition of the House. The gerrymanderers have done a very good job of picking their voters such that there are very few competitive districts.

This is rational ignorance, isn't it? What's the point of taking time to learn about the issues when there's an infinitessimal chance that your vote will decide the election? For most people the costs will far exceed the benefits.

One thing the article does not mention is the increasing phenomenon of survey non-response and whether this influenced the study results. In other words, what percentage of the public told the pollsters "go piss up a rope?"

This is rational ignorance, isn't it?

Nope. You've forgotten the social element. Say I'm a passionate ABB voter and I find out you thought this way and so didn't bother to inform yourself about something I'm sure would've turned you into an apostle of the left, too. Say W won by a moderate squeaker, and I'm really angry, and also convinced that if 60,000 voters just like you had bothered to learn the Gospel of Michael Moore, the anti-Christ would've been retired to Crawford.

Now say also I'm your boss, and you want a raise this year. Got the picture?

You inform yourself and vote in no small part for the same reason you take your turn on point when your platoon is on patrol. No, it may not be in your immediate self-interest. But it is in your long-term self-interest to not piss off your comrades by being an ignorant slacker.

Lauri - in that situation, I think I'd find myself a different boss.

I actually agree with you in spirit - I follow politics closely myself and always vote, though my vote has never changed the result of any election. But most people don't, and don't treat an election like going on patrol. So I don't think the social element is important to many people, beyond the tribal sense of belonging to a party (which isn't very likely to be affected by particular issues).