You are slightly overthinking it, but you are also doing the right thing, and I respect this attitude a lot. I wish more people were like you. Logic and knowledge should always prevail, not emotions.

I'll quantify why I said overthinking: In the great political machine that is the government + the opposing party (or parties, depending on the country) the individual candidate promises do not mean as much as they make it out to mean. The government machine is very slow to implement anything and it requires consensus from a lot of individuals for anything major to happen. Of course, the higher the position the candidate is for, the more likely what he or she wants to do might happen. But even then it is better to look at the bigger picture of the parties, and what they can do given the political environment and then vote.

I feel very similar.
Mass media, be it OTA TV, established newspapers, and the big [brother] news sites makes me sick.
So much pressing on emotions, evading any factual discussion, which gets suppressed quickly if not "convenient" and conform to the mainstream newspeak.
This reminds me more and more of what I experienced in the real socialism ("communist") age here in my country.

At least here (in Germany) all mainstream political parties have become almost indistinguishable.
And the politicians of these established parties here seem to fall upwards instead of downwards the stair if they break the promises they gave their electors before elections.

The parliamentary delegate of our city, opposite to what she promised in her campaign, voted for a communal reform which severely limits citizens participations rights in communal politics.

And shortly after this, she demonstrated her denial and ignorance what is happening here when she said in a TV-live-transmitted public discussion forum that there had been only "two violent incidents" in our city.
Shortly before, the state television reported that number of violent crimes here increased tenfold in only two years, with now annually a three-digit-number of people needing emergency hospital care after "incidents". (I better keep quiet what kind of people cause this explosion in violent crime)

Imagine, this woman now got promoted by her party's leaders to the states' science and education minister, being lauded for being so "reliable".

Personally, I find this totally disgusting.
I am thinking about voting for those that are being lambasted and damned most by these corrupt politicians. They are probably a little bit less corrupt, I guess.

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

cyclone3d wrote:

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

An informed voter knows it's a bad idea. 😦

gdjacobs wrote:

cyclone3d wrote:

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

An informed voter knows it's a bad idea. 😦

🤣.... And just why do you think it is a bad idea? Is it because the NPCs on fake news told you so?

Well, I do not read Fakebook (never had an account and never will have) so I am not informed.

But I cannot understand why people like Jussie Smollett still are celebrities, in spite of what he did.
I find this crazy.

Here in Germany a girl slit a swastika into her arm using a knife and pretended that "Nazis" had attacked and cut her that symbol into the skin, causing her being celebrated by the leftist mass media while they foamed against all which was supposedly "rightist".
But soon it turned out that these "nazis" never existed. The girl confessed under tears that she made up the story.
Imagine, some time later she even got a state-sponsored award for "civil courage" and was celebrated again.
(Just for your information, if one tattooes a swastika in Germany, this is a felony. So, actually the girl legally would have been subject to mandatory indiction. But that got dismissed quickly, because, well, it was "civil courage", whatever this means nowadays...)

Personally, I find this sick. Just insane.

In a sane society people like Smollett or this girl would be discredited and despised as liars, and being offered a psychotherapy, I believe...

Obviously this thread is not for advocacy for one political side or the other.

You can be an informed voter and vote any way you like, so long as you know exactly what you are voting for. It may be good or bad or evil or whatever, but you’d better know what’s going on. It just depends on what your opinion is.

Many people vote for the conservative candidate or the liberal candidate just because of societal inertia and not because they care. Many more people could not say why they voted how they did, only giving you vague answers about how they thought Candidate X was good. Well yes, but why? Economic policies?? Social policies?? Candidate’s voting record?? Argument as to why you support Policy A, B, C, etc. which the candidate also supports? Way too many people have no idea about ANY of this stuff and just vote for the candidate who catches their fancy at any given moment. I call these people the “mushy middle” and I’m pretty sure they are about a third of the population. They mostly vote based on emotion.

This “mushy middle” are, unfortunately, the people who swing elections. This is why the candidate who appeals emotionally to the largest segment of the mushy middle will usually win. In 2016 it was Donald Trump who understood that best, and that’s why he won. Emotional appeals are the most historically easy way to win the day.

No matter which way you vote, I think you should have a coherent philosophy that stands behind your decision. You should be able to sit down and explain to me why you voted how you did, and it should line up with your personal beliefs. It might not line up with my beliefs, but it should line up with yours.

My opinion is that voter drives are not a good idea, because they only end up convincing uninformed people to vote, because those people are the most likely to be “on the fence” about voting.

There’s nothing actually “wrong” about being uninformed. But if you’re going to vote then you’d better know exactly what you believe about the issues and what you’re voting for based on those beliefs - otherwise, you are just a figure in the campaign algorithms, and society would be healthier if you either informed yourself or didn’t vote.

cyclone3d wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

cyclone3d wrote:

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

An informed voter knows it's a bad idea. 😦

🤣.... And just why do you think it is a bad idea? Is it because the NPCs on fake news told you so?

Journalists are all people. Not characters in a video game. Stop using dumb terms. Even if you're being sarcastic.

cyclone3d wrote:

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

You can say this, but you would be indisputably and objectively wrong. In politics, there has never been a one-size-fits-all candidate, and I don't think there ever will be. It's always a question of balancing your values and ethical standpoint against what you think a candidate will realistically deliver.

Is it uninformed or wrong for Jim to like the big tax break for the rich that was promised, given that it will reduce his tax burden? What about Mary, who despises the very idea of such a tax break, when she is working 40 hours per week, plus a few other part-time arrangements, in a constant struggle to keep a roof over her head and feed her family; is it uninformed/wrong for her to look for a minimum-wage increase and policies to support that, and to help her get away from being among the working poor? This is part of the problem that some people have, and it seems particularly pronounced in your country at this point: they don't even want to consider the possibility that a given person has different priorities based on their needs and circumstances; if you disagree with their preference, you are dumb/wrong/uninformed or worse, regardless of how well-reasoned your choices or arguments. They don't even want to discuss it or consider another point of view.

This sort of division may serve particular politicians' interests, but it isn't doing anything good for your country. I have never understood this firm division along political-party lines. It's as if some people base their viewpoints on the talking points of a particular party, rather than supporting the party that best meets their needs/values. In my case, I think all of the major Canadian federal parties have some good policies or have had some good points; deciding which one gets my vote is far more complex than just marking the name associated with a particular party, and it can and has changed from one election cycle to another. Running a country and serving the greater good involves far more than just being aligned with a particular political brand. It's sad that some people have forgotten this fact.

Ok first of all, there doesn't exist in any reality, a voter that is completely informed. That's a fallacy. We're all making decisions based on the limited input we have. There's so much disinformation, and so many events that just aren't documented, and just plain so many events that ARE documented, that we will never have the complete picture. IMO, that is no reason to abstain. If it were, nobody could be justified to vote.

Here's the thing. We -- us, right here -- we are the ones that get to decide how politics works in our own country. It is now an established practice to "groom the message" to where it's palatable to the public. We, society as a whole, have become accustomed to hearing statements prepared to be defensible. And then we complain that they are double-talk, and slippery to the point of being meaningless. But, when we hear something raw and maybe not bullet-proof, we tear the speaker to shreds over it. So what is the expected outcome of this?

We have to stop accepting that life happens in sound-bites. I get saddened by people who turn off around political discussion. The only input they are allowing themselves is what has been filtered through the various media. A (potentially out-of-context) crop of a person's opinion or platform. If you were to take one sentence of someone's post on this forum and try to paint a picture of the speaker by that alone, how accurate do you think it would be?

So, my advice -- just listen. Don't rebut. Ask someone what they think. When you feel adventurous, ask someone you know disagrees with you. Let them say their piece, then ask them why they feel that way. Then nod and walk away. Dwell on it for a full day. When people aren't trying to defend themselves against a counter-argument, you'll be surprised what you learn. Maybe you learn that they don't know either. (And possibly they'll come to that same realization.) Maybe you'll learn that they've got a really good reason for their beliefs. Maybe you'll just learn that you have more in common than you think. (This is usually the case for me.) That is the only weapon we have against the onslaught of propaganda, though. Talk to each other. We all hold bits and pieces of the story, and only by sharing those perspectives can we get closer to being informed.

And when the public is united, not being divisive and petty, and not feeling defensive, then attempts to rule by emotion will fail. It's crucially important, guys.

DosFreak wrote:

When I do anything I do alot of research to make sure I'm making an informed decision but I know of no way to do that for politics.

It's simple. You just have to get as much information as you can from as many different sources as possible.

No source is objective; each has its own agenda. You have to be exposed to a lot of them to learn the different opinions, the different agendas, the stands on policy issues. Then you can form your own.

Personally, I just read news (and opinion) sites online, and sometimes read the newspapers. I don't listen to news on the radio, don't watch them on TV. That's simply because reading is my preferred method of getting information, and the information between TV, radio, newspaper, and online is largely the same, when it comes from the same source.

Also, there is a far larger variety of information online than there is on mainstream TV/radio, which is often monopolized by the established few media bodies (leaving you exposed only to their agenda).

DosFreak wrote:

From what I've seen the average person watches the news, reads facebook and talks to the co-workers and friends in their bubble and then vote for whoever they have been brainwashed to vote for.

That's why it's important to get information outside your bubble. Facebook feeds are probably the worst source - because Facebook tends to create these bubbles for you.

Note that I said it's simple. It does not mean it is easy or not time-consuming, but it does get easier with time, after you've already learned the parties involved (politicians and media), and their agendas.

ZellSF wrote:

Journalists are all people. Not characters in a video game. Stop using dumb terms. Even if you're being sarcastic.

Well, if you look at them and listen to them all parrot the SAME EXACT THING like they were programmed to do so and watch how they act - like they have no mind of their own, it is a really good parallel to what NPCs in games are like.

Go ahead and watch what happens when something they all "report" on looks and sounds like. They all use the same exact or almost same exact phrasing. They all act like they are reading from a script that was sent to them from the same person..and they all feign outrage at stuff that they would have not even said anything at all about if a leftist was in the White House.

So yeah.. NPCs of the left is exactly what they are.

cyclone3d wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Journalists are all people. Not characters in a video game. Stop using dumb terms. Even if you're being sarcastic.

Well, if you look at them and listen to them all parrot the SAME EXACT THING like they were programmed to do so and watch how they act - like they have no mind of their own, it is a really good parallel to what NPCs in games are like.

This kind of thing is impossible to judge without specific examples. Would you care to provide one or two examples of that media incidents that really left you with the impression of a strong bias? What media outlets did the pieces appear in and who were the journalists involved? Did you think a perceived bias was in line with their background and reporting during other terms of office?

cyclone3d wrote:

gdjacobs wrote:

cyclone3d wrote:

IF you think voting for Trump would be a bad idea.. then you are definitely what I would call an uninformed voter.

An informed voter knows it's a bad idea. 😦

🤣.... And just why do you think it is a bad idea? Is it because the NPCs on fake news told you so?

We shall see
the Republicans have been priming the fair share gas tax nonsense about 5 years now and a bill is working its way through to disband per gallon gas tax and replace it with a high fixed annual fee that will be the same for all vehicles moped through big pickup.
If it makes it through committee let’s see what his reaction to this is.
Could be up to $3500 a year, I have a feeling the folks praising this road funding solution may get a bitter taste if it were to actually pass (as opposed to just generate talking head material as it dies)

cyclone3d wrote:

ZellSF wrote:

Journalists are all people. Not characters in a video game. Stop using dumb terms. Even if you're being sarcastic.

Well, if you look at them and listen to them all parrot the SAME EXACT THING like they were programmed to do so and watch how they act - like they have no mind of their own, it is a really good parallel to what NPCs in games are like.

That seems like the an indication that you may need to find new sources. I'll grant you, cable news networks (any of them, really) run like for-profit companies these days. ..... because they are. Sensationalism and drama sell. Argumentative guests are interesting. Outrage inspires action. None of this is healthy for an informed public. All it does is brainwash the populace through repeated messaging, and make money for the media companies, and those they are politically aligned with.

I prefer NPR. It's not totally unbiased, of course. I used to feel it was pretty even, but I listened to some folks that objected to it, and I started to become sensitive to the things that might lead someone to feel that way. Today, I do see there's a liberal tilt to it, but most of the time I'm OK with a slight tilt, because it's mostly things I feel are necessary for peace and order between a disparate population -- i.e., a general push for human rights and equality, and trying to reign in the sleight of hand from our... shall we say, "less than honest" administration. Don't misunderstand, I'll gladly consider and discuss with someone the merits of any political agenda, but (politics aside) Trump is objectively a repugnant person, who plays fast and loose with the truth, and I am appreciative that there are conscientious journalists out there struggling to maintain some sense of balance to that. That might be too "left" for some, and that's fine. Let it be said, I would expect nothing less with a Democratic administration as well. I'm happy to agree to disagree, but I do not like dishonesty.

I am also particularly interested in what I hear from BBC and others without a dog in this fight. They have their interests, their alignments, their opinions. But I like that they're at least one step removed, so I can gain a little perspective from the outside.

I'll also entertain myself with comedy and talk, in small doses, from those that I generally agree with. BUT, I do not accept their opinions without passing through my own filter, and I try to be vigilant in paying attention to what is fact and what is hyperbole. If I ever feel that I'm starting to agree with everything said, that's when I get nervous.

I'm from the US. I just vote on policies that candidates explain in their own words -- even go back and research if they've lied, changed position numerous times, voted the opposite of what they said they would, wrote a book exposing their real thoughts, held interviews that expose their true thoughts, etc. Then I apply that to my own political alignment and see how it matches. It's extremely difficult to find a candidate that matches, or even matches 80%. I will however vote for someone that mostly matches, as long as they don't have any positions that completely violate my top 3 personal beliefs -- otherwise it is a write-in candidate for me. I'm non-religious, so that doesn't play a factor for me, but I'm also mostly libertarian when it comes to government, and a mix of libertarian/conservative socially & morally. I am a computer engineer by trade, so I stick with scientific facts. I find that almost all candidates tout pseudo-science as fact, and impose harsh penalties on the citizens because of it, whether it be through taxation or telling me how many gallons of water my new toilet is allowed to flush.

Hey, it's all redundant folks as the "occasional cortex" says we'll all be dead in 12 years unless her "new" green deal gets going! Screw politics till I find a new boxed voodoo 5500 for less than 2 grand!!! 🤣

I don't vote either as I haven't felt represented by any candidate in this country since I've reached voting age. I don't believe in voting for the "lesser evil" either. To avoid senseless argument, I'm not going to elaborate at all. Just call me another cuckoo and that's fine. At least Plato would half agree with me.

What's the solution though?
Voting and "community elected" "democratic" leadership results in the social elite manipulating the average mind (even if it's through reverse psychology - tell somebody what NOT to do, and they'll do it). The average always results in change, the average mind isn't thoroughly examining the candidate and using logic while avoiding emotional bias. The average mind is far too busy slaving at their 9-5 and coming home to screaming, out of control children to actually spend reasonable time evaluating the state of the world.

If what I said above is true, we can then deduce that an authoritarian dictatorship is the only reasonable way to lead civilization. But it would only take one or two generations before you go from benevolent dictator to spoiled rotten sinister inheritor of the throne.

Round and round she goes.

In other words, just vote for me. Free IBM 5170s for everyone who votes for me (be sure to read the fine print though).

"I've got what it takes to take what you've got."