Talk:Low information voter

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Low Information Voters Redirect[edit]

All swing voters are not low information voters. Some Swing Voters are low information voters. A single page is therefore not an accurate representation of the phenomenon.

Additional Information : Low information voters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.72.82.166 (talk • contribs) 08:54, 4 December 2011‎ (UTC)[reply]

Article contradicts itself[edit]

It first says they are more moderate in their views and then that they are "anti-intellectual and hostile-to-science religious cranks." I don't see how you can have it both ways. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:30, 29 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Conflicted Ideology[edit]

What does it say to demean some as low information voters while quite intentionally writing an article that is so ridiculously one sided as to contribute more to the problem than even sparse or accidentally wrong information? My guess (unsourced) is that the shameless individual probably could not care less. This entire article needs a reboot. sAd really. And obvious... as the last U.S. Presidential election demonstrated that LIVs have clearly made the move to Santa Claus politics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.101.125.198 (talk) 15:38, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Who is really informed?[edit]

This term is really flawed. First of all, it implies there are two groups: high and low information voters. Everyone has a different amount of input before voting and even for those who think they are informed, who can be sure what's really going on behind the scenes? Why do many people not want low information voters to vote? Because they make dumb choices high information voters don't like? That's just hypocritical. Democracy says everyone can vote. Why do people get upset about what other people vote. Apparently, there is a common sense that already defines the best party to vote for and all other choices are stupid. That makes elections futile. --94.134.89.221 (talk) 17:24, 26 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

                If you know the issues, you can take a stance, and you can vote. If you don't know the issues, you can still vote. I think this is what it refers to. It's like if someone is against the belief of global warming (as in, they don't even believe in global warming). The argument on the political stage is about what causes it, and is very rarely denied outright. Those that havn't even gone that far into the discussion could be considered poorly informed on the subject of global warming if they deny the earth is even warming. They get to vote anyway, and may vote for a candidate that also doesn't even believe in global warming, or believes it's a Chinese hoax or w/e.... btw how do i sign?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.27.245 (talk) 04:05, 31 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A single issue voter is not a low information voeter.[edit]

"Some are single-issue voters, i.e. they vote primarily on a single issue they care very much about, such as gun control.[citation needed]"

This sentence should be removed. A person who votes on a single issue should not be considered a low information voter. Also there is no citation to back the claim. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:246:CC00:4620:0:0:0:9 (talk) 04:53, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]