Most races usually have at least SOME clues to each candidates positions, even if only party affiliation (obviously that does not apply to strictly non-partisan races; I do wonder how third party candidates would fare if ballots did not list party affiliation.) I cannot fault people not voting in races on which they are wholly ignorant; I fault their easily eliminated ignorance, for which they are thus to blame. I share your support for a "none" option, because that would allow disaffected voters to register disapproval of all candidates in a meaningful way, rather than just conceding undesirable candidates default victories.


Well, I am certainly not pushing uninformed voting; perhaps I give Americans too much credit, but voters informing themselves is implicit in my advocacy of voting. Their non-involvement certainly gives our votes greater weight though, hence I find it absurd to say criticizing non-voting is "denying their voice." Saying no one can hear those who voluntarily don, demand, muzzles is not silencing them, only acknowledging they silenced themselves. Saying one refuses to vote because of ignorance is like saying, "I only shot that guard because he tried to stop me robbing the bank." Either way, ignorance of the law is no excuse.

In this case we are not dealing with ignorant people afraid of creating signal noise, but supposedly knowledgeable people eagerly creating a different kind of signal noise. They do not lack knowledge or preferences, only refuse to voice either, then complain government does not listen to them. Politicians are just like everyone else: They pay little attention to those not speaking to them (particularly given all the others frequently and loudly speaking to them.)