Are voters competent citizens? Existing evidence suggests that voters are both hopeless and surprisingly efficient. Some scholars find that the average voter does not possess the requisite knowledge to cast a competent vote. Others, still, have shown that individuals can capitalize on information shortcuts to arrive at a choice that approximates an informed decision. Our understanding of the depth (or shallowness) of voter knowledge and competence is, however, underdeveloped. In my dissertation, I ask three fundamental questions about the American voter. First, how does voter knowledge of politics compare to subjects that have a far more frequent, immediate, and intimate impact? Second, do voters employ information shortcuts to make reasoned choices as often as scholars have commonly assumed? Third, can voters learn from noisy and sometimes confusing campaigns? To answer these questions, I designed and conducted two election surveys in San Diego, California. For the first question, I conclude that voters knew more about politics when compared to everyday consumer and investment products. This result leads to two conclusions: first, scholars need to rethink how we measure knowledge, and second, voters may be better equipped to make political decisions than they are to make decisions at the grocery store. For the second question, I find that voters use information shortcuts much less often than scholars commonly assume. I also discovered, however, that most voters make reasoned choices regardless of how much they know about a policy. Moreover, simple policy changes can improve the usage rate of information shortcuts, which may lead to better decisions. For the third question, I discover that voters learned more about a ballot measure that had an active campaign when compared to an orphaned ballot measure that had no campaign. This result implies that campaigns, no matter how viral or convoluted, do help voters learn what they need to know
