You become what you repeat every day. Inversely, you will not become what you do not practice regularly.
We cannot expect people to do a thorough evaluation of the alternative candidates every time there is an election. This means that who people vote for depends on a host of other factors (personal situations, fears, brand affinity, partial information on some of the candidates, one or two specific policies…). This sounds suboptimal from a rational perspective, but is it possible that it introduces some beneficial randomness that keeps excessive social control at bay?
Most of the harm we do as humans is not due to cruelty, but rather to indifference.
We tend to feel uncomfortable when facing paradoxes, but they seem to capture the world much better than clear-cut conclusions.