According to Webster's, to be informed means “to possess knowledge, especially of facts or occurrences, necessary for an understanding of a pertinent matter, or as a basis for action.” 

Also according to Webster's, an issue is a matter that is in dispute between two or more parties, a point of debate or controversy. 

So to be informed on the issues means to possess knowledge, especially of facts or occurrences, necessary for an understanding of a matter that is in dispute, or as a basis for action. 

But in any presidential campaign, virtually no voter has any knowledge of the relevant facts or occurrences. What he or she does have are deliberately biased assertions, generally in the form of inferences, judgments, and opinions, that are put forth by each side and by their political allies in the news media and among quasi-public organizations, such as labor unions and trade associations. They're also given, in addition, just, plain ol' bald-faced lies. 

And the whole idea behind these biased assertions and these lies is to sell one candidate to the voter while unselling the other. 

So each side presents its candidate in a favorable light and the other side's candidate in an unfavorable light by using issues offensively (“I'm for it, so I'm a good guy”) or defensively (“I'm against it, so I'm a good guy”). 

Voters, then, not having facts to work with, are left only with feelings to make their choice. Consequently, they vote for the “good guy” or against the “bad guy.” 

So tell me, do we elect presidents on the basis of issues or on the basis of feelings? 

Think about it.