So far three conservative members of this community have made reference to low information voters.
I guess that means that the voters in this district were uninformed about who (what race) the winning candidate actually was, and made assumptions based on potentially misleading campaign propaganda.
Typically calling someone a "low information voter" is a bit of an insult, to the extent that these voters or too dumb, indifferent, or gullible to actually go out and seek truly relevant information when making a decision about who to vote for.
What I found funny though was that this article makes no actual reference to any voters complaining that they were duped.
A losing candidate makes that accusation, sure, but there's no corroboration from the actual voters.
So for all we know it's entirely possible that many, most, even potentially all voters knew exactly who they were voting for and voted for reasons entirely unrelated to race.
So in a paradoxical way the conservative members of this community who are leveling the charge of "low information voter" are actually, themselves, "low information posters", basing their positions on a sheep-like belief that they charges the losing candidate is making are actually accurate.
That just sort of tickled my funny bone.