Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Michigan

The "Predictions" section
Is there a clear definition on what predictions should be added to the section? For example, this might sound a bit silly to some people, but can predictions by YouTubers such as Let's Talk Elections or Red Eagle Politics be added? Spinosaurus75 (Dinosaur Fan) (talk) 12:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I assume YouTubers are not considered credible enough unless they are part of a major organization EPIC STYLE (LET'S TALK) 05:05, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

semi-protection
This is very related to politics, and it happened yesterday, there doesn't seem to be a reason for it not to be semi-protected. Tommy has a great username (talk) 15:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Between 15:29, 4 November 2020 and now, this page has been protected. The issue has been solved. Tommy has a great username (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Wayne County
No update yet on what happened in Wayne county yesterday?? hmm someone will have fun updating :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.53.232.146 (talk) 17:03, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Claim that ballots were fed into tabulating machines multiple times
Can text regarding the idea that ballots were fed into tabulating machines multiple times at one or more Michigan polling places (as claimed by Mellissa Carone in the recent hearing with Rudy Giuliani at the Michigan legislature) be added to this article? If this isn't true (regardless of the fact that Carone supposedly signed an affidavit stating that she saw up to 30,000 ballots treated in such a manner), then it should be stated why this didn't happen/couldn't have happened. This article may provide some valuable background information about this and other claims of fraud. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

From what I have read, even if the same stack of ballots were indeed fed into the tabulating machine multiple times, it is impossible for a single ballot (each of which has a unique identifying number associated with a particular voter) to have been counted more than once, so Carone's fear (that thousands of the same ballots were counted multiple times) is unfounded. 173.88.246.138 (talk) 02:20, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Human error dispute
https://www.theepochtimes.com/attorney-michigan-vote-flip-happened-due-to-computer-program-not-human-error_3615410.html?utm_source=newsnoe&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=breaking-2020-12-12-3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.35.78.195 (talk) 17:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

Percentages
I forgot to add a description of my edit, but I changed the percentages in the 'General Election Results' infobox to be in conformity with the Michigan Secretary of State's election results page. This is one of two sources given for the infobox, along with Leip. They are also the percentages used in the 'results by state' section of the main page for the 2020 election.

I couldn't figure out how to edit the figures in the main infobox at the top of the page.

It seems to me that at a minimum, the percentages on the main page and the state page should agree. I would also question using Leip as a source, especially if other, more official sources are available. Wikipedia consistently uses the FEC report (which I presume isn't available yet for this election) as a preferred source for election data, and, for whatever reason, Leip has consistently slightly diverged from the FEC report in every election from 2008 on. In his 'America Votes' series, Rhodes Cook also consistently uses data that agrees with FEC reports, not Leip. Toadmore (talk) 19:39, 15 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I have update the infobox and results table in this article to match the state's official results and the results table at the 2020 United States presidential election. --21:11, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

The county map is a mischaracterization from the perspective of the average reader, resulting in what is essentially fake news
The map of the various counties, showing which counties each presidential candidate took, is a mischaracterization in the sense that the average reader may not readily understand that the size of the counties are not representative of their populations. I understand the map isn't *actually* fake news, it is portraying who each county voted for -- but, as it stands alone, it gives the false impression to the average reader that Mr. Trump overwhelmingly took the election in a landslide, adding fuel to the narrative that Biden stole Michigan. If it is deemed that the map must stand, then in order to educate the reader and give them a sense that things are more complex than at first they appear, a corresponding map should be placed alongside depicting the percentage each president took the state by, so that the average reader can see that Mr. Biden ALSO pulled in some solid numbers -- and that perhaps the simple narrative isn't actually as simple as this map at first seems to make it appear. BGresham73 (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * The map does not stand alone. It is part of an article with many tables and charts that make clear how the election turned out.  That being said, what you're referring to could be addressed by a county-level cartogram, like what is on the main article for the 2020 election.  This map shows that Michigan is mostly blue.  Someone with more experience then me would be needed to create such a map image for a single state.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:22, 7 January 2022 (UTC)


 * I'm well aware that county-level electoral maps are sometimes misused by Republicans to falsely imply they won an election simply because they won more counties. But the operative word is "misused." The solution isn't to dismiss the data, but to better educate readers on what that data means--namely, that Dems tend to dominate fewer counties, but those with larger populations. The county results still provide relevant and useful info. For one thing, many of the counties have a history as bellwethers in presidential elections. They also give a sense about how well the candidates performed among specific demographics, such as urban vs. suburban vs. rural, different income and racial groups, etc. Sometimes this can be more accurate than the data from exit polls (which in 2020 were plagued with problems).


 * Also, the fact that Dems dominate fewer but more populous counties is interesting in itself, and speaks to the trend over the past several decades of rural voters moving into the GOP's column while Dems dominate the big cities and have been gaining increasing strength in suburbs. Illinois is a case in point. The last Democrat to lose the state was Michael Dukakis in 1988, yet Dukakis actually won more counties in the state than any Democrat in the 21st century except Obama in 2008. Hillary won just 12 of the 102 counties--the lowest total for a Democrat since Reagan's 1984 landslide. Biden only won a couple more. And yet they both outperformed Obama's 2012 margin in the state. Illinois is an uber-blue state almost entirely on the basis of the Chicago area. If you removed Cook County, it would be a red state. But that's not a reason to dismiss the legitimacy of Democratic dominance in the state, considering that the Chicago area is where most of the state's population lives (Cook County alone contains over 40% of the residents). And it's through metro areas that Dems have made gains in formerly red states; it was a key to their winning Georgia in 2020, which was achieved largely through the Atlanta area, rather than through the more traditional mode of winning back the so-called "Reagan Democrats."


 * The county maps are no more "fake news" than the national electoral map, which you could argue can also give a distorted impression by the disproportionate number of physically massive but underpopulated states that Republicans dominate. Ultimately, the data is just that, data, and just because some people distort its meaning through a superficial understanding of it doesn't mean it isn't valuable. marbeh raglaim (talk) 11:09, 24 January 2022 (UTC)