Would it be safe to say that many older citizens are not digitally literate, and have much more limited means of accessing up to date / in depth kind of information, left with then, increasing exposure to the propoganda. The same could be said for the socioeconomic differences.. and access to quality information.. or, in this case, they don't go looking for it.
Or is the case that in 2016, no one has any excuse to be ill-informed, or to not be able to cut through the # - with all the plethora of information out there. We are using and filtering information every day of our lives. We know what information to take (more seriously) and what to leave?
I'm 75 and I don't count myself as "digitally literate." Much as I am relaxed with the modernist world, I don't use a mobile phone. I claim not to be able to use them, but actually it's much simpler - I don't want to talk to people on the phone.
Yet over the last few days (here) I have discovered that I am considerably more digitally literate than many much younger people.
You may be right that no one has any excuse to be ill-informed, but that suggests that people go looking for information and I'd dispute that. Even if they do, the great mass of media is ready to make up their minds for them. How are people supposed to know that they're often being fed bull dust by the media - whichever newspaper they read, whichever tv station they watch, whichever website they find? Everyone has an agenda and the power of the media is pervasive.
People "trust" the BBC and so will generally accept the BBC's view of what are quite complicated issues (I tend to), yet the BBC has its agenda, which is well to the left of centre - commitment to an ideal masquerading as fairness. Others "trust" Fox News (Murdoch), yet Fox has its own brazen agenda, well to the right of centre, and will usually condense any issue, no matter how complex, to that agenda.
Your counter might be that people have the rest of the internet to seek out the truth, and yes, they do, but (a) that's highly idealised view of much of the human race and (b) what is "the truth" and how will they know it when they've found it, even if they bother to look?
For whatever reason, a majority of people in England (rightly wrongly, who knows?) voted to leave the EU and a lot of things have happened since then. Many stock markets have largely recovered from the beating they took and while British pound is on its knees, it isn't falling anymore.
One of the leading popular voices for the exit was assumed to be Britain's next Prime Minister - and he isn't, he's out of the race. Meanwhile, a much more sensible and moderate voice is the front runner to assume the role, but a week is, as we see, a long time in politics. Look across the Atlantic, or look at Australia, where a few months ago Malcolm Turnbull was considered a shoe-in to win the election but he sold his centrist soul to the right wing - and much of the public recognised that, by sense as much as by information. Now even he admits that tomorrow's election is a kind edge.
My view that most people, of whatever age, no matter how much information is available to them, don't vote with their minds but with their hearts - and the heart can be a very fickle thing.