Who takes the time to do research before voting? Some things I see shows me that people do vote based on why the see on the surface

I doubt anyone would really admit that they *don't* make an informed choice. We all like to think we have the answers figured out.

I follow my candidate at first and then look into every single one when the field become much smaller. No point to waste effort on when there are like 12 candidates on the stage :)

Vote... Don't lose your right.

I believe most of the American populace does nto research at all...theylet the news and other pundits provide their information. There are a wealth of sites on the internet that you can go to to find out voting records, past history, financials, etc. Do the research, and vote your heart.

We who have fought for freedom, do not take it for granted. I would like to believe all active duty, retired, and veteran research ALL candidates in all parties before casting their vote.

I do quite a bit of research....I don't just listen to TV and take their word for it....the TV tends to cut out most of the important things that they don't want you to hear....the TV is really good at cutting little snips and bits and putting out there NOT was really said or done. Nope, don't listen to the TV to figure it out.

Research that leads to a more well rounded understanding--as opposed to cherry-picking things that support preconceived ideas and ignoring things that threaten those ideas--requires effort and time. We don't like to do that. We're a culture that yells at our microwaves to cook our prepackaged burrito faster.

I do my best to stay on top of it!

After a lot of research on the subject, I've made the informed decision to not vote. Nor will I vote for the lesser of two evils. I believe the more informed a voter is, not just on a candidate but on the whole process; the less likely they are to bother casting a ballot.
To Quote Joseph Stalin "It doesn't matter who the people vote for, all that matters is who counts the votes."

I follow the candidates throughout the entire election cycle, but only go in depth on candidates I am actually considering. This cycle I researched Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley only because I knew from the beginning that the next president will probably make two or three Supreme Court Nominations and I do not want a conservative nominated to the court. I am a social progressive and a fiscal moderate, so in 2008 I seriously considered John McCain who I liked better than Barack Obama. I considered him because the balance of he Supreme Court wasn't likely up for grabs and only voted against him when I started learning about Sarah Palin and McCain's prior heart attacks. With a less wacko running mate (I was hoping he'd pick Lindsay Graham) he would have had my vote.

I looked closely at Romney in 2012, but thought (rightly) the court might be in play and voted again for Obama, who has already appointed two liberals (thank goodness) to the Supreme Court.

Of the GOP initial field I liked Webb, Bush and Graham, and would have loved to see one of them as the nominee in case the Democrats lose, but I could not have voted for one in the general.

As for the current GOP crowd I'm not a fan of any as even "only adult in the room" Kasich is a social conservative, Trump is obnoxious, Rubio has no depth and Cruz is crazy-tent level religious. I don't want any of them to be POTUS, but only Kasich would be remotely acceptable and it is Cruz, by far, who scares me the most.