I'd vote for Obama if I could. Or if I was really politically interested I'd try to gather a crowd and create a demonstration against the incompetancy of candidates and the general U.S electorate, by launching anti-voting campaigns. Probably nothing would change, but still, it's a matter of principle.
In any case, the problem with voting isn't that people don't vote - It's that there are 10 idiots to counteract every 1 smart voter.
If anything, we should restrict voting by demanding that anyone who wants to vote must first engage in some sort of written test to prove that the person knows the issues enough to make an informed opinion on who to vote for.
Are you implying then that people are born stupid, and that they somehow tend to end up being religious? Blaming the bad in religion on "stupid" people makes no sense what so ever. How did the people get "stupid" to begin with?
In any case, what is so great about religion?
What you refer to as "brainwashed for years" is actually fits the bill much better in terms of what we know from science on the minds of religious people, although I agree that exact phrasing might be an exaggeration.
Years of unchecked acceptance of faith claims, enforced by authoritarian figures, and conformation biases in combationation with an attitude lacking consistant critical thinking is a necessity for unfounded belief structures like religious to function.
Does this mean all religious people are stupid, or "brainwashed"? No, but it says something about a quality which all religious people share, whether they belong to the extremist factions or not - namely that they are all intellectually dishonest and labouring under a system kept in check by their ignorance, rather than their knowledge.
The "logical" way of looking at religion in light of this, is as a system better to forgo, than to keep.
Providing someone a wrong explanation for something, is factually equal to explaining nothing. Explaining nothing, is not a necessity.
Although some people might fear what they don't understand or what they don't know, humanity have several ways of combating that fear appart from religion that makes more sense - One is called acceptance of ignorance, the other is callled science.
Religion and magical "explanations" are intellectually lazy cop-outs of people who spun magical tales out of simple phenomenon because they lived dreary existences fighting for their lives one inch at a time in a dark and hostile environment - It was one way of dealing with the shait they experienced.
However, just because it was a function of the old mankind, does not mean it was good, smart, or that it's worth keeping around except as a cultural/historical oddity.
Most religion are morally bankrupt because they are internally inconsistant, and try to enforce morality - not by appealing to empathy and common ground - But by threating us with punishment, promising us rewards, or simply asserting moral statements as gospel truth because some divine entity has decreed it.
Whenever you read a moral statement in a book, you make a judgement yourself, on the basis of past experience etc, whether you take that sentence to heart or not.
Reading in the bible that killing is wrong, isn't going to change your mind in and of itself.
This why religious people often have deeply divergent moralities(some people saying homosexuals should be killed etc). Moral judgements come from the individual, not the religion. The religion only serves as buffer in that confirms the views of the person engaging in it, and strengthens them.
That's why "religion provides morality" is a completely moot point. Humans provide morality, with basis in our upbringing and faculty for empathy.
When a religious person hates gays, it's not because he is religious - It is because he has a hatred for gays, that his religion reflects that hate.
Some religions serve as better buffers for hatred than others though, because the lore is less clear, and more violent(the Abrahamic Religions in particular).