My state's significant elections are determined soley by its demographics, the exception being true controversies. If I am still in Oklahoma the next time our State Superintendent of Education goes up for reelection, I will certainly be voting our current one out. She has risen to the level of controversy by way of being completely arrogant, favoring her own "vision" over the advice and pleading experts, superintendents, teachers, and parents. People have reason to vote over such controversy. But for the most part, voting against whoever is in office would be ridiculous even if you don't like their politics: on a local level, experience matters more than policy values, and the incumbant is inherently the more experienced candidate. And if they've done their job, they'll win just by name recognition and the incumbant advantage. So no, voting doesn't matter in most states, not even on a local level; and when it does it is easy to know that it does. And only those who have come by their knowledge of the controversy organically really need to be the ones voting on the matter. Everyone else should just butt out, because clearly they aren't affected or are too focused on other things to vote wisely.