> In theory it simply favors a well-informed citizenry.
This is a terrible "theory." No voter can be fully informed. I'm not even talking about the asymmetric information that leaders have (information from spy networks, experts, etc). Literally no single person can comprehend all these connections and complexities involved in many things. This is what representatives are supposed to resolve, but they frequently fail us. Your vote always is and always will be a guess. There may be a handful of subjects you're qualified to be an expert on, but the rest are effectively guesses. An "informed" voter is one that knows they are uninformed and doing their best.
This isn't a comment encouraging autocracy, but one against this myth of "education is the end all be all solution." We should inform people as much as possible but also be encouraging nuanced discussions. Wisdom of the crowds is powerful, but we also need to recognize the limitations.
> I would be curious if exit pollsters have ever asked this question. Ask people who they voted for, but also who they think will win. It would be interesting to see how accurate guesses are.
Absolutely not! We want to protect the secrecy of the vote. This can only encourage the degradation of that privacy. There are many ways to extract more information from votes without revealing identity. Cardinal methods, especially Score and STAR, give you a lot more information that you can use infer voter preferences. These methods also allow you to vote honestly, which defeats the entire purpose of your poll question.