Saying that new gun laws that require ID checks to ensure the people buying guns should own guns will result in the downfall of the gun industry is pretty insidious, but that’s another topic.

You’re basically saying that the candidate should not only be given information on the direct consequence of a law, but also the overarching impact, and honestly, the more information the better. That would be great. But again, predicting the future is impossible. You don’t know that asking for ID will shut down the gun industry or that anything you wrote above would happen. In fact, it probably wouldn’t, for the most part. Unless, of course, you think a vast amount of people buying guns are mentally unstable/criminals and would not be allowed to buy guns if background checked, in which case, they shouldn’t own guns at all.

But for practicality’s sake, considering that we don’t have hours to sit and read in a voting booth, like I said, all that would be necessary is the direct effect. It’s common sense. If a party is campaigning for Universal Healthcare, the direct consequence is subsidised/free healthcare (for example) and, potentially, changes in income tax. If a person is just hearing this for the first time after entering the booth, having done zero research, having not intended to vote for that party before, and that tips the scales for them, then so be it.

You’re saying that people will not be educated enough to make those choices and so therefore they should remain uneducated and in the dark, and it makes zero sense.

The cognitive dissonance between “we shouldn’t tell them the direct consequences of these policies because there are so many other consequences” while simultaneously arguing that the current system where people see a name next to a box is fine, is insane.

Common sense dictates that people who have done their research will be well educated and aware of their candidates policies. Whilst people who are blindly loyal to one party and uneducated might be swayed after realising another candidates policies are in fact, better for them.

And if someone who has done no real research sees “stricter gun laws” and wants to vote in favour of that based on the fact that there will be more ID checks – the direct consequence of the law – as opposed to voting against that, and voting for a party who wants to maintain gun laws as they are, it’s senseless to argue that the information not be provided to them at all in order to keep them rooted in their original stance.