How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?

Media bias is responsible for "poisoning" voter opinions

Question: How accurate are claims that the US election is rigged?
Position1 of 3›: Claims that the US election is rigged are very accurate
Argument‹5 of 6›: Media bias is responsible for "poisoning" voter opinions

Claims that the US election is rigged are very accurate. Media bias via news outlets and digital platforms such as social media post statements that influence voter opinions.

The argument

Disinformation about voting was circulated online during the 2020 presidential primaries, Many more voters than usual have been reliant on the internet for election information due to the ongoing coronavirus pandemic. On "Super Tuesday", the US presidential primary election day in March when a number of US states hold primary elections and caucuses, disinformation across several states was spread. The rise of digital media and the internet have made it even easier and more affordable to reach massive amounts of people very quickly and anonymously. Some actors are now able to direct disinformation towards both a national audience, and towards a local audience to disrupt politics and influence voter opinions.

Premises

[P1]During the 2020 primaries, with more voters than usual relying on the internet amid the pandemic, disinformation about voting was circulated across several states, including on Super Tuesday. [P2] Digital media let actors cheaply and anonymously target both national and local audiences to disrupt politics and influence voter opinion. [C] Therefore, proponents argue that media bias and disinformation poison voter opinion, which they take to support claims that the US election is rigged.

Counter-arguments

Voters are not easily influenced by social media. They are aware of the existence of disinformation on different platforms and are careful to consider this when reading pieces of fake news. There is a clear distinction between where people receive their news, and where they get their opinions. They may use social media platforms such as Twitter to learn more about the election and the candidates' policies. Their opinions are formulated by themselves, and are therefore unlikely to be influenced by social media.

Rejecting the premises

[Rejecting P1] Circulation of false claims online is well documented, but the premise describes disinformation rather than media bias, and the two are distinct — the title names one while the evidence supports the other. No source, volume or reach is given for the Super Tuesday material. [Rejecting P2] The capability described is real; the effect is not established. Whether targeted messaging changes votes is a contested empirical question, and the argument measures opportunity rather than persuasion. The larger gap is between the premises and the conclusion: disinformation is speech directed at voters, while a rigged election is one in which votes are not counted as cast. Nothing here concerns registration, ballots, tabulation or certification, so even at full strength the argument supports a claim about a poorly informed electorate rather than a fraudulent election — which is precisely what the sibling positions dispute.