The Founders Guarded Against the Ignorant Vote
A couple of post down brought about a discussion of the right to vote. The effect of political television commercials prooves something: many many many voters are utterly vacant of meaningful thought when policy and governance are the issue. This is not to judge; it is a valid question whether we all ought to be mini-pundits. I do have an opinion (yes), but I could be wrong. One might wonder why we appoint people to represent us if we are not indeed appointing their service to do the thinking for us.

I tend to think that if we are to be citizens, we must have a knowledge, to the extent possible, of our government's workings. And if we vote, we should do so with an intent to affect those workings. Of course, a great many forces work to cloud this simple truth. To the extent a person figures a corporate entity has access to lawmakers greater than an individual, it is all the easier to fall into apathy (or, if not apathy, helplessness).

A commercial society
Further, we are an entertainment and commercial driven society, and this dilutes the importance of menaingful political thinking. Here, the evidence is clear: political commercials, and not the Lincoln Douglas debates, are today's paradigm of politiking. Political commercials are meant to do one thing- get a person's vote; just like the sole purpose of finding a buyer with any other commercial. Political commercials don't exist to educate, and they don't exist to clearly state the politician's nor their foes ideas. They only want a vote. This is precisely why any thinking person thinks they are obsurd. It is much like wondering why Shakira would make someone want to buy Pepsi.
But, baby, it works....
Now, no one doubts that commercials do not fairly compare one product against the next. If so, we'd all just subscribe to consumer reports and watch commercial free tv. Most people don't rely on commercials alone- but what of the person that does? It is one thing to buy Sprite over 7-Up because you think the commercials are more funny...what if the choice is over prescription drugs?
No way. Indeed, that's why they're prescription...some expert intervenes to make an informed and thoughtful choice.

Votes
And this brings us to voting. First, a clip from the comments section to a post below. The context is un-informed voting.

there are questions about the voters ability to do that task.

... indeed they HAVE A RIGHT TO VOTE because they are citizens...in our Republican Democracy government doesn't "allow" us our rights, WE ALLOW THE GOVERNMENT TO MAKE LAWS AS WE HAVE COVENANTED. This is a hugely important concept, the very foundation of the nation's democracy.

This is in response to the (hyperbolic) question of whether the politically ignorant should be allowed to vote.
I won't adopt the far-fetched fantasy of requiring a certain amount of knowledge to vote, but I will play devil's advocate. (very quickly, the primary reason I don't want to bar the ignorant vote is the inumerable problems: at what point is someone too politically inable? who tests? and mainly- its just not constitutional.)

Structural Guards against Ignorant Votes
But:
Why is the voting age 18? Why were woman and man (that were not landowners) formerly barred from voting? Why did the Constitution write out that legislatures (and not people) send the 2 Senators?
In 1870, the 15th amendment passed on the right to vote to non-whites. It took another 50 years to bring in women, and it was not until 1971 that 18 year olds were guaranteed the right. Further, not until the 17th amendment in 1913 did the people elect Senators.
And we still have the electoral college.
WHat does all this say about the founders' opinion on the percieved ignorant vote? (maybe I should chime in right quick on "ignorant." by the term, I mean, literally, the lack of political knowledge.)
Why can't kids under 18 vote now? Does the answer have anything to do with the competence to understand political issues and consequences? Certainly it isn't because the results of elections have no consequence for them. The Constitution makes clear, with, for the time being, the penultimate amendment, that the right to vote, when over 18, shall not be denied. So the right may be denied before said age.
The denial of women and non-whites (and non-landoweners) brings to fore many of the same questions.

Most clearly, though, is the Article II Section 3 method of selecting Senators. Our Congress and Senate are Constitutionally set up much like the Houses of Commons and Lords in Britain. Why weren't Senators popularly elected? Distrust of the people.
Anyone that studies 5th Century Athens understands that the demos was much to blame for its demise. Government cannot run solely on the whim of the majority. For this reason (in part) comes the purpose of a Lords or Senate...to check the whim of the popular.
Back to the prescription drugs: Sometimes choices are dire enough to require expertise. The same applied to selecting the state's 2 Senators: the political experts (legislators) selected the Senate. This arrangement lasted until 1913.
So, is it really so that the founders expected an ignorant vote? While I disagree with the founders, and would argue the basic need, and even value of the ignorant vote, I cannot say they did. Indeed, they jealously guarded against it.