Editor: Usually even the most admirable human beings have skeletons. George Washington, of deserved sainted memory for example, once influenced an election in his favor by dispensing alcohol to voters. The strategy succeeded.
Both of America's modern day major political parties have significant histories involving somewhat comparable strategies. While they don't usually dispense liquor, half-truths and bold face lies are part and parcel of the political landscape. Quite often the electorate buys the "hokum" almost lock, stock and barrel.
Since the 2012 election, the term "low information voter" has been bandied around. The reference is to voters who turn out once every four years for presidential elections and otherwise ignore the circus that often is politics in modern America. These voters might be more susceptible to manipulation.
There is no question the electorate varies from election to election. In Wisconsin, it has been accurately noted that no Republican has won statewide elected office in a presidential election year since Bob Kasten did in 1980. Voter turnout is heavier in those years, and thus the number of low information voters increases. Empirical evidence would thus seem to indicate those voters skew toward the Democrats.
It is possible to postulate then that the Democrat party (which is largely controlled by rich coastal elites, academics and the main stream press) is in fact dependent on poorly informed, often dependent on government voters, in order for it to achieve electoral success. How's that for irony?
I would then ask - is this said same party really interested in helping lift these voters out of poverty or are its interests better served by keeping them dependent and uninformed? Furthermore, how is this different than Washington buying votes by getting people drunk in 1758? Certainly in this case, I'd suggest the hangover appears to be much longer lasting.
Jerome C. Lippert