well, so far this election has been "why you shouldnt vote for the other guy" rather than "why you should vote for me"
So have the majority of past elections. This is the same type of situation that had many people
voting for Bush (against Clinton) in 2000, for Clinton (against Bush Sr) in 1992, for Reagan (against
Carter)... etc.
I agree that we can't stereotype on group - I should have done it, but a large majority of young americans are misinformed or just totally UNinformed.
So are a large majority of older Americans, in my experience. People in general tend to place
their dependence on "trusted sources" without taking the extra step to verify the credibility of
the source itself. I know people in thier 40s to 70s that I will not talk politics with, because they
get just as emotional and knee-jerk reactive to thier interests.
You also have to consider that it was not in Hannity's interest to show informed voters among the
protesters. That would have required actually debating issues, or having to do some fact checking
on his own part to either collaborate or refute thier claims. For a quick TV sound bite, its easier
to just find the people who have no clue, then fill in the blanks with your own content.
You are right that it would be better if all the citizens were informed voters, but that is not the
system our forefathers built. They wanted to make sure that the largest number of people
could vote, to get a broader idea of what the general populace thought about specific topics.
Then they placed safeguards (the electoral college, federal and state level government, the
three branch system) to make sure society could still function even when the general populace
was not making a fully informed decision in the process. They were probably hoping that
the power of a free press, and better access to public officials would encourage citizens to
become more informed about the issues of the day. What they didn't forsee was all the
new distractions that would come along to help cloud the issues even further.