"That was a shameful piece you put together about youth voting. ... I wonder if the quality of the information in our society has anything to do with hackery like yours infesting the airwaves and drowning out reasonable discussion."
Another wrote: "You are a decrepit journalist and a poor excuse of a patriot."
And still another: "Democracy is defined by citizen participation. So you are undermining democracy. Thanks."
Someone even made a video parody mocking my story.
Clearly, not everyone understood what I was saying.
"You sit there on television and ignorantly say that all youth should not vote . . . wow."
That's not what I said. I hope that informed young people do vote.
I just don't think it's so wonderful when famous people drag uninformed and uninterested people to the polls.
One viewer raised a fair point: "You simply cannot create a litmus test for voters. At what point does a voter become satisfactorily 'informed'? Do they have to know the name of the president, vice president, both their senators? This is the problem with your argument; you don't state how informed a voter should be, just that they should be. This is a very slippery slope."
But I'm not saying that the government should impose a litmus test. God forbid. I just want clueless people to find something else to do on Nov. 4.
Voting is serious business. It works best when people educate themselves.
If uninformed people stay home on Election Day, good.
That doesn't include you.