Apart from a Trump win, nothing will convince Trump fans that the election was not stolen

Poor guy is having one hell of a time with this. Well, they say time heals all wounds. So he’s got that going for him.

 

Don't expect too much; he's just a bad entertainer.

 

I think we should not trust, at least, that article about the poll, if not perhaps the poll, as well. The article actually quotes numbers, in a very incomplete fashion, from 2 different polls. The primary one was an Ipsos/Reuters poll, but a couple of supplementary citations come from a Politico/Morning Consult poll, to basically back up the 1st one. Forbes' Magazine merely printed the article.

The article is definitely part of the problem. The author's failure to give all the respondents' choices, for example, leads to inaccurate assumptions, like yours, Ashera.

For instance, the article says that 73% of all respondents think that Biden rightly won. But only 55% think the count was legitimate & accurate. To me, that's splitting a pretty fine hair. If I said someone, "rightly won," I would not need to mean that the result was 100.00% accurate; however, I would mean that the count was, " legitimate," & accurate enough. I don't think that 55% are saying that the result is not off at all, even by a couple of votes. So what was the response that 18% (who'd said Biden rightfully won) chose instead of legitimate & accurate? Surely it wasn't illegitimate or inaccurate! Because of this obscurity in the differentiation of these phrases, I suggest we only focus in that 73% figure which, while not great, is not necessarily debilitating, either.

Here's another cautionary example against assuming what those not cited (the balance of 100%) chose: 52% of Republicans believe Trump rightfully won; but only 29% said Biden rightfully won. So I guess 19% are still undecided (or punched the wall & said, "no comment").

I like this result. Since 29% of Republicans called Biden the RIGHTFUL winner, that leaves 71% of a different opinion. But 68% of Republicans believe the election was rigged! So, at least 49% (all but no more than 3 of the 52% who'd said that Trump won) of Republicans must, logically, believe that it was TRUMP WHO RIGGED IT! But I guess, as long as it was Trump, they still felt they could call him the, "rightful," winner. (See my excerpt from the story, below).

TOPLINE

"Slightly more than half of Republicans believe that President Donald Trump 'rightfully won' the election and 68% think it may have been “rigged,” a new Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted Nov. 13 to 17 finds, showing how Trump’s refusal to concede and baseless claims of voter fraud are landing with his supporters despite a lack of concrete evidence to back them up."


Even if those Republicans who'd said Biden had rightfully won the election still thought that he may have rigged it-- plus that other 19% who didn't know who'd won-- at least 20% of the Republicans polled must have answered BOTH that Trump had won, AND that they suspected the election of being rigged. Either his supporters are more honest than I give 'em credit for, or less bright.
I wonder if the writer of the article was a Republican.

 

Puny activist lower court judge. Let it go to the SCOTUS.

 

Like in some precincts where the vote was 200-300% greater than eligible voters?

 

Um....

The claim: In Michigan “we have over-votes in numerous precincts of 150%, 200%, and 300%.”
During a Nov. 19 news conference, Rudy Giuliani, a lawyer representing President Donald Trump, charged that many precincts in Michigan — a key state won by his Democratic opponent, President-elect Joe Biden — recorded more votes than actual voters.

In Michigan, he said, "we have over-votes in numerous precincts of 150%, 200% and 300%."

Giuliani’s source for these percentages was an affidavit authored by Russell Ramsland, a security consultant and former Republican congressional candidate. The document alleges that anomalies in the vote count indicate that Michigan election results were "manipulated."

"There were at least 19 precincts where the Presidential Votes Cast compared to the Estimated Voters based on Reported Statistics exceeded 100%," the affidavit reads. The document then goes on to list the 19 precincts.
But there’s a problem, and it’s a big one: All 19 of the precincts cited in the affidavit are actually in Minnesota, not Michigan.

When we checked data from the Office of the Minnesota Secretary of State, we found no support for the affidavit’s conclusions. In the five townships cited as having the largest number of over-votes, the number of votes on Election Day was smaller than the number of registered voters.

For example, the affidavit cites Minnesota’s Benville Township as having 350% voter turnout, which would be by far the largest over-voting rate alleged in the document. Both Giuliani and Trump lawyer Sidney Powell cited the 350% figure in the Nov. 19 news conference.

However, according to the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office's election data, 63 people voted in the township, and 71 were registered to vote, a turnout rate of 89%.
https://www.freep.com/story/news/lo...ck-rudy-giuliani-affidavit-errors/6366011002/

Do try to keep up. I'm getting tired of having to correct you.

 

The uproar about the canvassing board is all about members wanting to certify the vote without investigating and explaining the discrepancies, something they are supposed to do and also did not do for the mid terms.

 

More hearsay from you?

 

Fact from the canvasser the was called a racist for wanting to follow the rules.

 

Link?

 

Being called a racist proves what exactly?

 

Exactly. You are catching on.

 

So, nothing. Do you ever respond with anything other than nothing?

 

Fair point, but that’s on the legislative side. I don’t think selection of the executive branch should forever be dominated by the nation’s metropolitan population centers. We got a cult leader from the right this time, but a cult leader from the left would be just as bad.

 

Population centers don't vote. People do. Where people live should not have any effect on their vote.

 

Here we have a case where a disproportionate representation in the senate meshed with the same for president and the results are not pretty. This senate proved to be little more than a rubber stamp wielded by someone who lost the popular vote by millions. They even went so far as to change the rules to prevent Democrat interference. Check and balance eliminated.
If you do away with the EC and go to a one person one vote system the small states still retain their disproportionate representation in the senate to act as a check on the president and by extension the courts.
I would also like to see the senate return to the 60/40 vote in judges with the additional rule that if 40 vote for a motion to bring a candidate before the full senate for debate and vote with at least 10 from the minority with the motion the nominee will get a vote. This concept of the majority leader can prevent any nomination unilaterally is not what the founding fathers intended and has resulted in a disproportionate court representation as well.

 

The "magic word" of the whole problem is "fairness" ... and that can only be achieved through compromise.
You mention it as a negative point that the population centers are not allowed to dominate. OK ... but isn't it unfair then because the majority of the people = voters don't count at least? You can see it that way too ...

The core question of the US electoral system is actually: Who elects the US president / should elect the US president?

It is a personal election for the head of state of all US Americans, regardless in which of the 50 states the individual voter lives in. So the popular vote is actually just the right method in my opinion then...
Unfortunately, the US electoral college sees it differently, because here it is not the citizen that counts, but the states with the electors at least!