Talk:Attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election

For other attempts...

The links at the top are not attempts to overthrow elections, but rather attempted coups. Referring to them as "other attempts" thus carries some implication that this article refers to an attempted coup, which is a claim the article otherwise avoids. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WKALT (talk • contribs) 16:10, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah these links belong in a 'See Also' section if anything, not at the top of the article. That's unusual. I'll go ahead and move them. TocMan (talk) 22:51, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

End of attempts

The other day I changed the end date of of these attempts from January 7 to "present." I see it has now been reversed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Attempts_to_overturn_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=prev&oldid=1051120513

My reasoning is that the audits continue and some people think audits could reverse the election (Trump said the AZ audit would get him reinstated by August) and now some people are talking about a movement to decertify elections based on audits. So even if what some people think can happen can't actually happen, their attempts to overturn continue. And that's the title of the article. What say others? soibangla (talk) 18:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

• 100% agree. — Alalch Emis (talk) 19:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
• I would also support keeping the end date as "present" for the time being. As long as entire state legislatures undertake efforts like this (even if those efforts are ridiculous virtue-signalling) it's appropriate to say efforts to overturn the election are ongoing. --Tserton (talk) 16:03, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
• The audit in Arizona did not lead to Trump being reinstated nor did it led to the state’s results being overturned or decertified as several of his supporters were hoping. Ducey rejected calls for the state’s election results to be decertified or overturned following the audit. Even Fann said that the audit wasn’t intended to overturn or decertify the state’s election despite calls from several of Trump’s supporters to do so. Biden would have been at 270 even without Arizona. The audit in Pennsylvania is on hold, Jake Corman said that the legislature has no authority to overturn the election, Josh Shapiro will do everything to prevent the audit from happening, and a similar effort by Doug Mastriano has failed. The election can’t and won’t be overturned by audits, and in fact, there is no mechanism to overturn it. I would say keep it as it and not change it to “present”. I added several of this stuff to the article. --Neocon1 (talk) 01:40, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Neocon1, would you like to comment? soibangla (talk) 01:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

@Soibangla: @Tserton: The audit in Arizona did not lead to Trump being reinstated nor did it led to the state’s results being overturned or decertified as several of his supporters were hoping. Ducey rejected calls for the state’s election results to be decertified or overturned following the audit. Even Fann said that the audit wasn’t intended to overturn or decertify the state’s election despite calls from several of Trump’s supporters to do so. Biden would have been at 270 even without Arizona. The audit in Pennsylvania is on hold, Jake Corman said that the legislature has no authority to overturn the election, Josh Shapiro will do everything to prevent the audit from happening, and a similar effort by Doug Mastriano has failed. The election can’t and won’t be overturned by audits, and in fact, there is no mechanism to overturn it. I would say keep it as it and not change it to “present”. I added several of this stuff to the article. —Neocon1 (talk) 23:07, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Soibangla. This is open-ended as Trump and the GOP keep up with their attempts, and it's spreading to more and more GOP states, if not all by now. The insurrection is out in the open, and satire about Trump just going directly to taking power, without any real reelection campaign, seems to reflect the GOP's wet dream. Even if a campaign and voting end up happening, GOP states will just replace electors with Trump electors and thus hand him the election, the will of the majority of voters be damned. -- Valjean (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Citation and or Clarification needed

The following statement indicates some kind of "failure of Texas". This statement needs further clarification and possibly a reference as it is not clear what Texas fail in doing. Is this failure of Trump's lawyer's in the Texas courts? Did the state of Texas (governor, Texas' Senate, and/or Texas' House of Representatives) fail at assisting Trump's attempted coup? I looked in the two references, but did not notice anything about a Texas failure.

"After the failure of Texas, Trump reportedly considered additional options, including military intervention, seizing voting machines and another appeal to the Supreme Court, as well as challenging the congressional counting of the electoral votes on January 6, 2021.[57][58]" Thanks, DaveD1954 (talk) 21:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Please note that Texas is italicized and refers to the court case Texas v. Pennsylvania from the preceding paragraph. soibangla (talk) 22:17, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Hi Soibangla. Thanks for this explanation! I found this wiki extremely helpful and easy to read right up until that statement, "After the failure of Texas...", which completely confused me as I didn't make that connection that you point out. When I first read this, I searched the article for "Texas" and anything suggesting a Texas failure (and also googled Texas failures), but still didn't make a connection to that "the Supreme Court declined to hear Texas v. Pennsylvania" as the this specific Texas "failure". I'm certain there will be others who also won't make this connection. I'd respectfully suggest adding a tiny bit more clarity and maybe add that same link (to the Texas v. Pennsylvania wikipedia page) to that italized Texas or maybe change "After the failure of Texas,..." to "After the failure of the Texas v. Pennsylvania lawsuit,...".

I would do the above myself, but I am a complete noob here and will leave it up to those more experienced. Thanks. DaveD1954 (talk) 22:54, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

We don’t double link within the same passage, so that’s not really an option here. One could expand it to the full name of the lawsuit, but then it starts sounding redundant. An italicized abbreviation is a extremely common when referring to cases like this, so I think that it’s fine as is. Cpotisch (talk) 00:21, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Huh, Weird

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Not surprised that I'm surprised there's not much about people trying to hurt the 2016 United States presidential election or to even things out enough to understand the unfairness obsessed hatred unfairness toward somewhat unnecessary hate against Trump. Surely Wikipedia would be unbiased, right? lol dont sue me — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:3079:b7d1:2fbc:9ccf (talk) 17:42, December 3, 2021 (UTC)

Since there were no attempts to overturn the 2016 election, there is no article about said nonexistent attempts. Trump and Trump supporters did attempt to overturn the 2020 election, though. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

That assumption doesn't change the fact showing there's tons of hate, lies, and violence/threats like from many Dems and other Trump opposers have commited. I can promise you, you cannot say with 100% certainty that there were no attempts to overturn the 2016 election. Lastly Trump is not and never is solely responsible for the riot, etc. And no, I'm not a Trumpanzee, dear reader. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:6011:9600:52c0:3079:b7d1:2fbc:9ccf (talk • contribs) 18:15, December 3, 2021 (UTC)

Please don't edit a post that somebody has already responded to. It's not "opinion" that there was no attempt to overturn the 2016 election or that there was an attempt to overturn it in 2020. And nobody has said Trump was solely responsible for it. I have no idea what violence or threats you're referring to. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:17, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I was editing only because I can't reply and I find myself needing to rectify my comments. Also, by "opinion" I mean it would indeed depend on the details of the statements (I should have been more clear and less vague). The elections kinda did receive hostile ATTEMPTS. Mind you, I agree they weren't rigged. But broadly speaking, in a way it was stolen: as someone puts it, by four years of unrelenting, deliberately dishonest attacks on President Donald Trump. As for your last two comments, you should really recheck and research that (xd). For the first part, I'm referring how people are over blaming him. We do need to understand the motive and objective, including that both sides and treating each other unfair - adding fuel to the fire. I'm not trying to get off-topic, just saying.

If you want to go down that line of reasoning, then in a similar way, Trump's win in 2016 was also stolen due to Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections, and Trump made it worse by confirming himself to be a puppet of Putin in the 2018 Russia–United States summit, which flabbergasted even his ardent supporters. And all of this is off-topic for this talk page. If you have specific suggestions to improve this article, make them. ~Anachronist (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

You've took my statements way out of context as I've expected. It's not the same thinking so slow down. First of all Russian interference hasn't been proven. Second, despite any possible harm, Trump would have won either way. Third, the US has interfered WAY MORE all around the globe, just don't forget that. People only call Trump (and others) things like "being a puppet" just to throw up dirt simply because they don't support him and would do anything to make up such pathetic lies, especially since they want an excuse and it fits their ally. Let's not pretend the media is innocent. Taking these things not seriously is exactly what causes them. As for the article, we need the article less biased, that's my suggestion.

Russian interference hasn't been proven. Are you aware that American, British and Dutch intelligence hacked into the GRU network and watched them interfering in real time? They even hacked the security cameras and photographed the hackers. Are you aware the CIA had a top-level mole in the Kremlin who told them Putin had ordered and orchestrated the interference?[1] Just askin'. soibangla (talk) 03:55, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I still don't see how that made Trump win (to be fair), because it didn't. Oh wait, interference and rigging don't have to be the same thing (I think I'm referring to something slightly different but still important). And maybe Russia was just generally against Clinton and Biden. Election interfering isn't a new thing and it's not without fraud from BOTH sides. Yet remember, we shouldn't believe everything we see and read. But here's the (at least one big main) point, this still pales into comparison of other occurrences. Like I said, a bigger problem was the 4 years of unrelenting, deliberately dishonest attacks on the President, but don't take that out of context (although it would also be very useful to be able to distinguish the behavior and the policies). Again, as for the article, you can't talk about the 2020 election without the 2016 one. So...

Wikipedia is so bias towards far-left terrorism it is truly unbelievable. Y’all don’t know y’all’s asses from a hole in the ground, do you? It’s a shame.

Let's add "...the results of" to the lead

Our lead sentence currently says Trump et al worked to deny the election ("...pursued an aggressive and unprecedented effort to deny and overturn the election"). "Deny the election" doesn't really make sense; it suggests that perhaps they denied that the election took place. Instead, they worked to deny the results of the election, and the lead ought to say so. PRRfan (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)