> I voted for change in 2008. So did millions of other Americans
Millions of Americans voted for "hope and change". My mother-in-law was one of those millions. The problem is, "hope and change" was a _slogan_. She voted for a slogan. That's entirely understandable, most people are not political scientists, and they have several other things in their life that they care more about than economics, foreign affairs, etc. They aren't researching the candidates voting records because they are busy making dinner for their kids, changing a tire, or enjoying some hobby.
When I ask my mother-in-law opinion on any issue, she's most often against the position Senator Obama voted for. She actually disagrees with him on most things. She doesn't know that because she works 50 hours a week and has a life, so she doesn't spend time studying the issues. Instead, she votes a slogan. Completely understandable.
While it's completely understandable, it creates big problems. Ideally, everyone would spend 100 hours every four years studying the candidates, after spending 100 hours in each of the off years studying economics, foreign policy, etc. That's not going to happen. Most people are to busy / not interested enough to make a truly informed choice. If you're willing to study from impartial sources, great. If not, please do waste your vote on a third party, or stay home. Uninformed votes based on slogans are not helpful.
If you don't know what the capital of Iran is AND you don't know what the two major branches of economics are AND you don't know how many trillion the national debt is, you don't know who to vote for. That's okay. If you know two of the three, great, go vote.