Smart voters know enough, not everything

I agree with John Stossel's argument that "voting works best when people educate themselves." However, I challenge his premise that, "... uninformed people stay home on Election Day ..." I don't see the correlation between choosing the best leader and one's ability to score high marks on a U.S. naturalization test.

Sure, it would be nice if all voters could identify Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and name all 27 Amendments to the Constitution. But I argue that possessing sound judgment is more important than being "informed," as defined by John Stossel, especially in a day when many voters get "informed" by 30-second TV ads and fanatical e-mails. When it comes to politics, many people believe they are "informed," when the reality is that they are misinformed. It's easy to evaluate who's informed regarding the identity of Justice Ginsburg, but how do you determine who is correctly informed on the "issues."

Economist Bryan Caplan offers a poor analogy when he says laypersons should not give surgery advice; therefore, an "uninformed" person should leave voting to "wiser hands." I have a better analogy: the jury trial. Our forefathers have it right. The reasonable judgment of our peers is all that's needed to render a sound and fair decision. I don't need to be a lawyer to render a sound decision when both parties present their best case to me.

Speaking strictly politics, I see no evidence to indicate that the judgment of today's youth is less sound than that of their adult contemporaries. So the next time we question young voters at a concert, let's test their reasoning, not just their knowledge.

By the time you read this, my hope is that the "uninformed" youth vote will override all of the "informed" votes that got us into this mess.

Rob Benson

Vernon Hills