Let’s get right to it: Unless you study philosophy, you shouldn’t vote. (Shouldn’t =/= “not be allowed to”.)
The reason I say unless you study philosophy, you shouldn’t vote, is because you have no reason to vote, because you have no reason to believe what you believe. And if you have no reason to believe what you believe, then you believe what you believe, because you like to believe that, or want to believe that, or believe that on blind (but not reasonable) faith. Does that sound like the kind of person you want exerting influence over the direction of a country?
Please understand what I’m saying and what I’m not. What I’m not saying is you need to subscribe to “my” philosophy (Shitlordarianism) to say that you should vote, only that you should study philosophy “in general” before you do vote. In one sense, I’m making the case for an informed decision. I think most people would agree that you should have an informed decision before you vote, because that implies the person saying it is informed. But I am also going one level deeper than that. An informed decision means knowing why you feel the way you do about the decision your informed upon, before deciding on that decision. All of this assumes you know the issues–that’s kindergarten stuff.
But I would argue it’s as arbitrary to vote knowing the issues, but not knowing why you feel the way you do about the issues, as it is to vote not knowing the issues, at all. I repeat: unless you study philosophy, you shouldn’t vote.