This is extremely predictable though, because a sizable segment of Facebook users did not trust the outcome of the 2016 election. Why would it be any different in 2020?
People trust the outcome generally, whether they like it or hate it. The folks aren't trusting the inputs.
2020 is not 2016. Polling is suggesting a large shift. That may cause distrust in the outcome itself if the outcome doesn't align to polling due to voter suppression efforts and other possible issues.
Is the polling really all that different from this point in 2016? As I recall, in 2016, the eventual winner was way down in the polls right up until election day.
By the time of the election, the polls had narrowed considerably. There were a lot of clowns with predictions of 99% chances and whatnot, but people that actually understood statistics and polls had the race a lot closer to a coin flip at the time of the election (IIRC 60-40 odds).
EDIT: I would point out that this means that every four years, about 25% of the population picks the president. Ideally, we would be somewhere north of 40%. This bare majority participation occurs admist one of the biggest extended and hyped media events in the world. Other countries routinely get above 60-70% participation with far less nonsense.
I live in California. My preferred candidates win the vote almost 100% of the time no matter if I vote or not.
That's true in many, many states.
Not voting is pretty rational for most people. (I still vote anyway, mostly out of habit, even though I know it makes no earthly difference whatever to the outcome.)
> Maybe the electoral college isn't really that democratic
Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic. That's literally why it exists, to curb majority rule by cities at the expense of rural voters, who occupy the majority of the land and—more importantly—are cannon-fodder for our military and thus need a seat at the table if we city-goers hope to continue sending them off to die.
> Presumably you know this, but it's not supposed to be democratic.
Yes, that's why it's bad.
I don't think occupying a lot of land or joining the army at a higher rate entitles rural voters to more power than anyone else. If we're going down the route of determining whose vote should count for more, those two qualities seem to be near the bottom of the list.
And yet, we wouldn't have formed a nation at all without that compromise. Still, it's hard to know if the founders made the right decision.
We could just go back on our agreement. After all, people in flyover country are just a minority with little economic power and very little representation. I doubt anyone that matters would care if they have what little power they do have reduced.
All of these presume low shifts in the Overton window, which may or may not currently hold true.
Further, 1/3 of the population voting may be "rational" (folks figure their individual votes don't sway things or are uninformed and don't care to take the time), may be due to suppression (gerrymandering, ID hurdles for non-evident potential problems), or other factors.
You're right that anything can happen in this election, but reduced participation is a long term trend.
If people think their votes don't matter in an alleged democratic system, that's a huge problem for its legitimacy. If they're uninformed, it's because they probably think that their vote doesn't matter or there's no good information for them. Both are troubling.
But wouldn't these people still exist and not trust the outcome regardless? I wonder what the media consumption of these individuals looks like beyond Facebook.
