I've always believed that you should always vote and when confronted by names that I don't recognize on the ballot, I usually pick a mix of democrats and republicans. I figure if I pick of 2 democrats and 2 republicans out of 9 family court judge candidates they balance each other out.
I read a fairly convincing piece this morning in the Washington Post that makes the claim that you actually have an obligation to
not vote if ignorant of the issues/candidates. The piece says in part:
Even if you are an unusually well-informed voter, the enormous size, scope, and complexity of modern government ensure that there will be many issues and candidates about which you know very little….
It’s unrealistic to expect that everyone will achieve a high level of knowledge about every race and every initiative. But if you find that you know little or nothing about a particular race or ballot question, you might want to consider simply not voting on it. As political philosopher Jason Brennan argues, voters have a moral duty to be at least reasonably well-informed about the issues they vote on, because the decisions they make affect not just themselves but all of society. John Stuart Mill put it well when he wrote that voting is not just an exercise of personal choice, but rather “the exercise of power over others.” If you can’t exercise that power in at least a minimally responsible manner, maybe you should not do so at all.
(Link to full article: On election day, consider abstaining from ignorant voting - The Washington Post )
So do you vote even if you're not informed?