>Once you know the facts, it's much easier to draw correct conclusions. I disagree. Facts can and do often get in the way or confuse people - and oversimplifyi

>Once you know the facts, it's much easier to draw correct conclusions. I disagree. Facts can and do often get in the way or confuse people - and oversimplifying the facts for mass consumption has its own problems. What if the facts are data/statistics? Depending how they get massaged you can have wildly different conclusions and both still be "right". Or voters not willing to investigate the data themselves (or lack the ability to perform statistical analysis) could be easily influenced by how the data is presented, if the data is presented in a manner meant to make drawing the "favored" solution easier. What if the information presented is meant to mislead people with facts? Such as the old "ban dihydrogen monoxide" campaign. I can't remember the city (state?), but they held a vote to ban Uber. The way the phrasing was to accept/decline the ordinance to outlaw Uber was so confusingly worded I read it several times and still wasn't sure if I was supposed to vote "yes" or "no" on the ordinance... was it saying "yes" to the new ordinance to overrule/replace the old ordinance or was it voting "yes" to keep the old ordinance? If I voted "yes" was I voting to outlaw Uber or allow Uber? I have a feeling it was intentionally made as confusing as possible.