Considering how many people I know wait for their church to tell them who to vote for, I'm skeptical this smartening will come to politics. Being smart requires good information and that is in shorter and shorter supply. Most of the folks I spoke to who voted for Trump were not only unaware of things like Project 2025, they didn't want to know or didn't care. Their circle provided both the information and the decision to them in a single package.
I think this is most applicable in places where people have less information and pay less attention -- i.e., downballot. If someone says "I just want to vote however Trump [or my pastor, etc.] tells me to" you're right that this is likely to make less of a difference. But Trump isn't weighing in on county judge races and the like -- and I'm guessing that pastors aren't usually weighing in on them either.
My point is that people need to want information to make decisions for it to help them. Almost all down ballot voting is on party lines, and that won't change with new information.
Regarding smartening of voters, I would like to see you spell out the argument further. I’m inclined to agree with Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter. Getting information takes time, feedback signals from votes to outcomes are lengthy and convoluted by many other factors, therefore voters vote their tribe’s affiliation.
Appreciate your prompt and Sean's! Tribal affiliation (aka partisanship) is a huge driver and I don't expect that to go away any time soon. But there's a material class of voting choices where tribal affiliation is a relatively minor driver. A good idea for a future post :)
Considering how many people I know wait for their church to tell them who to vote for, I'm skeptical this smartening will come to politics. Being smart requires good information and that is in shorter and shorter supply. Most of the folks I spoke to who voted for Trump were not only unaware of things like Project 2025, they didn't want to know or didn't care. Their circle provided both the information and the decision to them in a single package.
I think this is most applicable in places where people have less information and pay less attention -- i.e., downballot. If someone says "I just want to vote however Trump [or my pastor, etc.] tells me to" you're right that this is likely to make less of a difference. But Trump isn't weighing in on county judge races and the like -- and I'm guessing that pastors aren't usually weighing in on them either.
My point is that people need to want information to make decisions for it to help them. Almost all down ballot voting is on party lines, and that won't change with new information.
Regarding smartening of voters, I would like to see you spell out the argument further. I’m inclined to agree with Bryan Caplan’s Myth of the Rational Voter. Getting information takes time, feedback signals from votes to outcomes are lengthy and convoluted by many other factors, therefore voters vote their tribe’s affiliation.
Appreciate your prompt and Sean's! Tribal affiliation (aka partisanship) is a huge driver and I don't expect that to go away any time soon. But there's a material class of voting choices where tribal affiliation is a relatively minor driver. A good idea for a future post :)