In The Responsible Electorate, V.O.

Key eloquently argues that the majority of the voting populous is not as irrational or psychotic as we have commonly come to perceive them. Key posits that the general populous only has access to the information that either candidate/party wants them to see, and likewise makes their decision off of the information that they are presented with. On the surface level the information gaps between each party/candidate do not appear as much of a problem, for it should be easy to verify the truth of a statement for oneself provided that one can rationally engage in the synthesis of two opposing viewpoints and come to a logical conclusion. For Key the problem arises when the voters cannot tell which piece of information is syndicated by which party/candidate and/or what the intended effect of that information should be, as they do not know who put out a piece of information, whether to regard it as a truth claim, or to regard it as a diversionary rhetorical tactic to confuse and annoy the opposing candidate/party. Ultimately, Key comes to the conclusion that in order to have a functional democratic process the voters must be completely informed on the intentions of whoever they are voting for. Although I agree with Keys main point, I believe that his argument begs the question, Is it wrong for voters to be uninformed if there uninformed vote elects someone or passes something that betters the country as a whole? Similar to Keys conclusion on the process of democracy, I would say that an uninformed voter casting a ballot is a betrayal of their inherent rights. An example of this would be a person who votes for a candidate whose platform they dont understand and if they did understand the candidates platform would disagree with said candidates viewpoint on major issues. At the point where an uninformed voter has voted for said candidate, the voter has effectively disenfranchised their self. For when the voters vote betrays their values it is as if the voter has never voted at all. In other words, the vote cancelled out the voters opinion causing a moot point where the voters opinion was lost as the voter failed to vote in accordance with their belief. I agree with Key on the point that this bizarre situation is detrimental to the democratic process as the voter is no longer represented fairly. However, in the case where the miss-vote elects someone or passes something that ends up benefitting the country as a whole; I would say that the miss-vote, although detrimental to the ideal of democracy, is a good outcome. I am aware that this is a slippery slope, but the ill-cast vote that benefits all is a rare occasion where the end justifies the means. This does not mean that we should encourage all voters to remain uninformed. In fact we should try to keep every voter informed to preserve the idea of democracy. But, if for some reason, in their ignorance, a voter were to disenfranchise their self to the betterment of the rest of the people; it is not a morally reprehensible outcome because the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. So, contrary to Keys argument, propaganda and the misleading of voters can have a beneficial outcome. But is the intentional misleading of voters good? In most cases, no, for it detracts from their ability to be adequately represented. But, on that rare chance where the loss of their representation results in a positive outcome, yes, propaganda would be considered good. The ultimate lesson to be shown in this unorthodox argument is that in the game of politics, as long as everyones lives are made better through the outcome of political action, the ends will always justify the means. If a voter being represented fairly results in something beneficial happening, then representing voters fairly is considered good. If a voter is misled into causing something good to happen, then a misrepresentation of the voters beliefs, although bad for democracy, is beneficial to the country as a whole.