> There is voting, of course, but to become an informed voter all one needs to do is read a short guide about the candidates and issues before the election.
I have often wondered how people can make uninformed decisions easily. Now I know.
Only reading a short guide, is akin to reading a Wikipedia article for a monumentally important decision, and not bothering to check the edit history, let alone the references.
Rather than make a snide remark, it's more useful to "steel man" this argument: Consider the X hours you spend over the course of a year reading the news, which for most people you would consider "informed American" is in the triple digits. (That's less than 20 minutes a day.) Now, rather than reading any news that year, imagine that before the election you sat down for X hours and read a some books and long-format essays about the candidates. While reading you are free to look up old news articles when pertinent. Who is the better informed voter? What if you spend only X/10 hours?
I have not heard the term (to) "steel man" (rather than (to) "straw man") before, interesting.
Admittedly, I was writing emotionally, as the sarcastic "Now I know" might suggest. However, I would argue that reading "a short guide" seems vastly different from what you suggest.
---
My emotional reaction was in response to how "a short guide" seems to suggest a very biased source; for instance a pamphlet that might be given out by a political party/group. Perhaps this was a flaw in phrasing, but that does not seem likely to me from the text.
I have often wondered how people can make uninformed decisions easily. Now I know.
Only reading a short guide, is akin to reading a Wikipedia article for a monumentally important decision, and not bothering to check the edit history, let alone the references.