Who did you vote for?

I've been following this Howard and Costello 'argy-bargy' and reading the average citizens view on this, for example, at The Age. I common thread in these rants is the phrase "I voted for Howard/Costello not Costello/Howard". Now, not everyone lives in the electorates of Bennelong or Higgins. So most of the writers in these forums did not in fact vote for Howard or Costello, unless their ballot had names similar to the Prime Minister or treasurer. So, you people did not vote for Howard/Costello but your local member. By the way, do they know who that is?

My point of this is that people should be thinking about who they are really voting for and keeping those individuals true to thier election promises. You should be basing your vote on the people actually standing in your electorate. I know that this idea is a fantasy. It's too hard to check what each candidate really stands for. Too many hide thier real beliefs just so they can ride on the coat tails of someone else. Thier ambition is just power, not to do good.

Another thing that gives me the irit's is 'directed preferences'. I was reminded of this via the story that John Pasquarelli ran as an independent and was funded by the Liberal party on the understanding that he would direct preferences to the Liberals. 'Directed preferences' rely on people being sheep and just doing what they are told. That's the problem. People have become lazy. Wake up! You can choose who you direct your preferences to. You don't have to follow the 'How to vote' cards.

This leads me to a few more hypotheses (I won't call them theories until they are backed by hard evidence, although I think the evidence is pretty strong) that I have:
90% of the population are sheep.
90% of the population are stupid.
The more a country becomes scientifically advanced, the less scientifically literate each individual becomes. In fact, they become less scientifically literate then the previous generation.