I am neither doctor, nor a lawyer (while some recent participants in this thread actually are both, btw). But I watch TV medical characters, like Dr. House. In every episode, the plot goes pretty much the same: in the quest for the right diagnoses, he and his team usually go through at least two or three wrong ones. And each time they pressure the patient or parents or significant others to sign a consent form. The message is the same: you either sign or you die. So how "informed" is that consent? When a team of doctors doesn't really know what is going on (until they do), how "informed" is that consent? Even if you would, magically, manage to graduate from a medical school in between the moment you are asked to sign and the moment you do (five minutes later), how really "informed" would that consent be?
And back to the topic: who's to say that the info given to voters is true, even if they read it? Are some people, or some social groups, or some governments, magically blessed by only telling the truth, with no self-interest, errors of judgment, no hidden agenda, etc.? And what exactly is that truth in complex issues, where emotions and cold numbers intersect, for instance? And who is to say that cold numbers should always supersede emotions?