Here's the impact. If you vote for my team everything will be super cool and awesome. Vote for the other team and democracy dies and the terrorists win.
This has been the political narrative since the beginning of time.
I'll go ahead and argue the unpopular opinion. The more dismissive the population is of politics the more empowered they are to take direct action and have a real impact of their livelihood.
Instead of binging on mainstream news for a hours a night, you could be broadening your horizons in terms of fitness, education and building on personal relationships.
In my experience people who are nuanced in mainstream national politics are divisive and generally unpleasant to be around because they think they know what's best for you. There's a reason it's socially unacceptable to bring up politics (and religion). It's polarizing and devoid of objectivity.
No, you should not spend every evening absorbing politics. But you should spend a few hours one time looking at (all of) the options and their positions.
The actors play people's discontent while differentiating themselves by promising top-down solutions to divisive personal issues. The fundamental meta-issues fucking our society are permanently off the table - eg sane monetary policy so a middle class can save again, or restoring the rule of law and putting the NSA traitors in prison [0].
The bad policies of the next salesperson are already written, and whether the Idiot or the Criminal wins this popularity contest only affects which companies' folders they come out of. After election, the winner's job will switch to selling the status quo to their supporter-victims. This further destroys people's rationality as they double down to justify their mistake.
[0] I'll preemptively head off the "third party" comment - it's just another level of control. The idiotic divisive politics are the result of emergent behavior based on what appeals to your average person. In the event the Libertarian party actually starts picking up steam, the same thing will happen to it as happened to the Tea Party. The fundamental problem is the centralization itself, of which our blind worship of Democracy is a pillar.
I mean, how many people are really putting in the necessary research and deep consideration for choosing the person most well qualified to run the (currently) most powerful country in the world?
Probably not many.
It seems more like two competing hype machines. Which bandwagon do you want to jump on? Except we're not choosing our favorite sports teams. The repercussions can change the fate of billions.
I would rather the uninformed/uninterested stay out of it than voting randomly. Yes, I think everyone should be able to vote. But no, I don't think everyone should.