You are right, Texas is not a good example here. I will give you another one instead: September 18, 2006 light from a massive supernova reached earth. The star

You are right, Texas is not a good example here. I will give you another one instead: September 18, 2006 light from a massive supernova reached earth. The star exploded in galaxy NGC 1260 238,000,000 light years away. This was the most energy intensive supernova ever recorded, and it's observation made it onto the Time magazine Top 10 scientific discoveries of the year. This explosion is considered a scientific fact. You can not prove that this was not faked. I consider the likelihood that it was faked considerably higher than the likelihood that Trump won the election. Why? You would need to coordinate fewer people to fake it, and the people whom you would need to coordinate would be roughly neutral towards the outcome you are manufacturing. In contrast to tip the election without _any_ evidence of this subterfuge emerging you need to coordinate a lot more people, and many of those are actively working _against_ the outcome you are manufacturing. I mean, i get where you are coming from: "Texas I can go and look at, microbes I can get a microscope and check myself, the electio I obviously can't!". Your problem is just that you stop thinking at this point. There just is more to it. Either way, it's abundantly clear that the reason that 30% of the US believe the election was tipped has nothing to do with these philosophical points you raise. The election was not any more or less secure than the last couple of dozen that people by and large accepted. The only thing that changed is that Trump, for personal gain, actively undermined the trust in institutions specifically engineered to make cheating hard and to certify results. But I suspect you probably know that on some level already.