Here is a piece that ran yesterday that I didn't get around to posting. It's a discussion about how "high info" voters can be in worse shape when casting a ballot than low info voters. While the piece refers to these voters as "informed", I substituted the words "high info". Maybe it's unjustified, but I think there is a distinction to someone who is informed on something vs someone who has a lot of info on something. The former implies that the info is accurate while the latter makes no judgement on whether the info is all of high quality or not.

http://www.vox.com/2015/6/8/8740897/info...ter-voters

The crux of the article is how people who are more informed may be in worse shape because of the choices of info. The article claims that many people succumb to the echo chamber effect and confirmation bias when looking for info. Liberals try to stick with places like MSNBC, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, etc. while conservatives stick to National Review, Fox News and Forbes.

It's rare to see this, but I believe that if you are truly an informed voter, you will take the time to read opposing points of view and rate candidates more objectively than we do. Also, reading articles from "those sources" (depending on your political persuasion) may be beneficial to you in the long run because you will be truly informed and not necessarily a slave to dogma.

Anyways, hoping to see some good discussion.