I think your estimation of the ratio is grossly over stated, BUT, I do agree with your overall sentiment; that being that most voters don't have the slightest idea as to why they actually vote the way they do.
What is true, is that Obama's campaign was incredibly successful in convincing a historically apathetic and uninvolved demo to vote. That's a good thing.
Whether you like the result or not, in a democracy, the more people that are engaged and invested, the better. Also, ALL young people should be thrilled with the 2008 election. The huge youth turnout will almost undoubtedly reshape the way in which campaigns are run, and most importantly, it will force politicians to begin to pander to young people. For far too long, the most powerful lobby in this country has been fucking Old People. Politicians literally fellate old people. Why? Because they vote, and they contribute money. Why do you think we've yet to see any real Social Security reform? Because to deny old people money, is to commit political suicide....nevermind the fact that it's bankrupting the country...I digress.
What I don't get—and this is not aimed at you specifically, but rather everyone who seems to constantly reference this "phenomenon"—is why people seem to think this ("this" meaning uninformed dummies decided an election) was NEW in the 2008 election.
Newsflash: Generally speaking, the electorate is largely uninformed about "their" candidate's policies, position on most issues, voting records, and all other tangible/objective criteria that would suggest his or her's relative qualification to hold office. Truthfully, to collect information about prospective candidates in order to make a truly responsible choice come Tuesday, is a LOT of work. What this means is that the overwhelming majority of people who show up come November tend to cast their votes on the basis of superficial nonsense, or on the strength of one or two issues—tops. In this case, the "superficial nonsense" happened to be some powerful rhetoric about "change" and that he, at least superficially, represented about as much a sharp contrast to Bush as imaginable.
To suggest that the "quality" of the voting majority that saw to Obama's victory is somehow inferior to any other previous majority—and thus the result is somehow invalid—is just stupid.
