To answer the OP’s question directly: maybe.
The problem is, it’s impossible to be 100% informed. In fact, the more informed you are, the more you realize how uninformed you are. There is a LOT of stuff that goes on in governance, and it involves ethics, social sciences, philosophy, lots and lots of statutes… it’s just an enormous body of related knowledge which the “ideal voter” should learn and internalize. We’re never going to have that. Even the politicians aren’t as informed as they should be, ideally.
At the same time, if people showed up to the polls not knowing anything about the candidates, and just voted for the guy with the better name, it would be the end of democracy. Those people have a moral obligation to get informed, but, failing that, they have a moral obligation to stay home.
So there is a middle-point somewhere – a minimum threshold at which you are morally qualified to vote. And, because that threshold depends on a lot of factors (complexity of the issues at stake, number of issues, importance of the issues, competitiveness of the election, etc.) we can’t actually give an absolute point at which the average voter can consider himself qualified to vote. About all we can say is that he should be reasonably well-informed.
I interpret that to mean that the voter should have a general idea of the candidates’ positions on issues and – no less important – a general idea of the candidates’ temperament and moral compass. (Newt Gingrich is a great example of a guy who’s right-on on most of the issues, but whose temperament and morality I do not trust at all to be appropriately presidential.) The minimally-qualified voter should be able to understand and articulate reasonable arguments on both sides of a central issue, and have given it enough thought (in some cases, prayer, too) to come to a conclusion about the issue that he can be reasonably confident in. (The last thing we need is more hardline partisans voting!)
For low-level candidates with little publicity or impact (e.g. county sheriff, local judge, police chief, etc.), it can be acceptable to trust the endorsement of a local political party, if you trust that political party. However, it is also acceptable to simply not vote in those races. (I tend toward the latter; I prefer those small-scale elections to be settled by people who know what’s at stake.)
Of course, this is all general ethics of voting. In practice, the United States political scene is very simple. There is an extremely important which eclipses all others – a dominant issue – and it is simple to understand both sides, simple to draw a (correct) conclusion, and it’s a competitive issue in virtually every election. That issue is abortion. It is so important and so simple that it leaves the threshold of minimum qualification very, very low compared to historic norms. Ideally we would not live in a society where as sacred and intellectually interesting a matter as voting can be boiled down to a single moral rule, but, unfortunately, we do, and that rule is:
Hold your nose and vote for the pro-lifer.