So I only recently found out that not all states send out a packet of information regarding everything being voted on the way California does. In California we get a booklet that's like 30-40 pages long that includes basic information on each candidate for all of the positions and all of the propositions we're voting on, what a 'yes' or 'no' vote means in each case, and the estimated financial impact of each vote.
Other places don't do this?!
How are people expected to know what they've voting on without dedicating a massive chunk of time to research. No wonder so many people just don't vote if they have no convenient method of figuring out what they're even voting for when they're standing in front of a ballot.
Ish? I got a - mostly self-reported - elevator pitch for the candidates on the ballot in the mail. Basically a brief summation of their history and a short paragraph about issue that they consider a priority if elected. It was using a half-sized newspaper, so it wasn't as brief as you might expect for something in the mail. But still, the thing was probably only...I want to say 8 pages total? Regardless, the contents were largely superficial, only touching on what the candidate thought was the most important factor and otherwise not really going into their policies and goals.
To your point, this has been a complaint of mine for some years now. The system only really works if the population is politically educated and informed, which is decidedly the exception rather than the rule. Even in presidential races - which dominate the news cycle for almost a year - the general populace would be hard pressed to accurately describe the candidates' policies, much less their qualifications. More commonly, they default to how they're characterized by their favored pundits, or simply assume that if they belong to the same party then they must share beliefs and priorities.
Never mind direct voting, wherein the ballots can be deliberately obtuse or otherwise misleading - with or without weasel wording - to try and prejudice voters towards a particular answer. Eg. "Should this law be
rejected? Yes or No?" is a very literal case of "vote yes to say no". I shit you not, that's a thing. In fact, here's an
example of it from 2014...as part of a 1,000 word ballot measure.
In a very fundamental way, our current approach to the system is somewhere between broken and useless. A voting population needs to be politically aware and capable of making informed decisions, and - right now - the system at best doesn't facilitate either consistently and at worst tries to sabotage both factors.