There are two schools of thought when considering Donald Trump’s efforts to retain power after the 2020 election.
One holds that Trump was simply pushing the boundaries of legality, squeezing through cracks or uncertainties in the process to effect a result that blocked Joe Biden’s inauguration. Some of those who think this is a fair description of what Trump and his allies attempted also think it was warranted, given baseless concerns about election fraud or illegalities. Others simply think it was a clever effort to snatch victory from the jaws of defeat, like violating unwritten rules to win a sporting contest.
The other school of thought argues that Trump and his allies broke the law to subvert the transfer of power. This camp includes special counsel Jack Smith.
Once we overlap these groups with the Republican primary electorate, things get interesting. A lot of Republicans clearly think that Trump was simply working an angle, as he had done so many times in so many circumstances before. Others — clearly fewer — think that what he did was illegal. Some chunk of the likely 2024 primary electorate, though, sits in a weird position: agreeing that Trump broke the law in his efforts to remain president, but also supporting his bid to regain that position in January 2025.
On Wednesday, The Washington Post released data from a poll conducted by Ipsos in partnership with FiveThirtyEight. Included among the questions was one that teased out an aspect of the distinction drawn above: Would Republican primary voters rather have a party nominee who respected the rules and customs of elections … or one who would do whatever it takes to win?
About 13 percent chose the latter, 1 in 8. Nearly all the rest chose a nominee who respects those customs. But that means, given Trump’s position in the polls, that a significant portion of the group preferring a nominee who respects election rules also support Trump’s candidacy.
There are interesting patterns in the willingness of likely primary voters to endorse a candidate indifferent to the rules of running for office. Men say that they prefer a candidate who will do whatever it takes to win more than women. So do extremely conservative Republicans, a quarter of whom endorse a candidate who will set rules and customs to the side.
As the news-consumption habits of respondents shift toward the fringe, their support for ignoring election rules climbs. More than a fifth of those who get news from Newsmax, One America News and other right-wing outlets prefer candidates indifferent to election rules. Among those who watch network news, the percentage is far lower.
Republicans have used the electoral collage to overturn the popular vote twice in my life. I have no doubt they'll do anything they can to undermine a fair election. They can't win otherwise.
No, Republicans haven't "used" the electoral college to overturn the popular vote, that's just how our election system works. I'm all for getting rid of the electoral college, but until then, this is the system we're stuck with.
I mean, to split hairs here, republicans (democrats as well, they just never succeeded in an electoral over popular victory) intentionally target specific areas with campaigning and funds in order to "use" the electoral system to secure the w, so they have used it, but they've used it to overrule the popular vote, not overturn.
Altho depending on who you ask there was some fishy shit with Bush IIRC so that could be overturn. I don't know anything about that tho so no clue the veracity of that.
The point is, it's not cheating or doing anything nefarious—it's just intelligent strategy. Don't hate the party, hate the system.
The 2000 presidential election is different. Florida's vote tallies were contested because they were so close. There was a recount that was also vey close and ultimately the Florida supreme court made a ruling in favor of Bush and gave him Florida's electoral votes. This was all technically legal, but very unusual, and what made it even fishier was the fact that Bush's brother (Jeb Bush) was governor of Florida at the time. That's why a lot of liberals felt Bush "stole" that election.
Yes, the electoral system works in favor of republicans. Just like gerrymandering is technically illegal but nobody's going to do anything about it.
Popular vote has NEVER meant shit in this country, there was no popular vote to overturn because that not how elections are measured
"Land votes not people, this is a good system" oh okay.
No one has ever claimed it was a good system, it's a system designed to work perfectly for the wealthy and the politicians they own
That's also why the Senate exists, it represents the States which are a stand in for Nobility. It's based on the UKs house of lords and house of commons. Congress represents the ~~peasants~~people, while the Senate represents the ~~nobility~~state.
Because this system is rigged in favor of republicans.
*the system is rigged in favor of the duopoly
I’d say our voting method is rigged in favor of the duopoly, and the electoral college is rigged in favor of republicans.