I do not think that it matters whether an uninformed voter votes or not. Not because I'm apathetic, but because both have evils that balance each other out. Also, because there is probably an equal number of uninformed voters who vote, and who don't vote at all (assuming that those who are informed vote).
If an uninformed voter chooses to vote, there are a few issues. The first is who he chooses. Does he choose randomly, or does he pick someone who they have heard name-dropped, but know nothing about? Assuming that most people don't want to waste their time standing in lines to vote if they're merely going to play eenie-meenie-miney-mo, we can also assume that, if an uninformed voter votes, they'll vote for someone they've heard name-dropped.
The name-dropping is the worrisome part, specifically because media comes into the mix. The beauty of liberalism is that every socioeconomic group is represented. However, this is easily corrupted when the media provides the name-dropping that would normally be ok if it came from friends or family (because they're in the same socioeconomic status and represent similar interests to the uninformed voter). Political campaign commercials can easily sway an uninformed voter without actually saying anything about their campaign, simply because they know the name of the candidate. The uninformed voter may also know one or two trivial facts about the candidate, which they use to legitimize their vote.
If media wasn't in the mix, then uninformed voters being "informed" by friends and family would be sufficient to carry out the balance of socioeconomic interests.
Summed up, an uninformed voter who votes could either be helping or hurting their own cause, depending on where they heard of the candidate they voted for: friends/family or the media.
On the other hand, an uninformed voter who doesn't vote is simply not representing himself. He's not hurting his cause (voting for the party that has a platform that would adversely affect him), but he's also not helping. Apathy could be ok if he instead would have voted for someone name-dropped by the media, but then apathy in large quantities (as in more than 50% of the population) is hurting the system as a whole.
It's really a hit or miss for an uninformed voter. He could:
--Help his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from family/friends)
--Hurt his socioeconomic group (by voting for a name-dropped candidate from the media)
--Do nothing by not voting
You brought up an interesting point about the influence of the media. I think that it is just another reason why the uninformed voter should not vote because they are easily swayed by this. Never mind the bias in the news, just reporting who is ahead in terms of campaign finances influences people on who they think is competent and able to lead. The more the media covers a particular candidate, the more likely a person is to think about voting for that candidate. The media is sensationalist and likes to tag onto charasmatic people like Obama in 08, but this does not mean they are the best choice for office. The uninformed voter doesn't have enough knowledge to make this distinction. This ends up corrupting the whole system of the election.
ReplyDelete