Anecdotally, it's worse than simply not fact checking.  I'm gonna be making some generalizations about conservatives from my own interactions with educated friends and family that I consider to have fringe beliefs, so please bare with me.

Educated conservatives actively believe the fact checkers are lying, and paid by off by rich people to push a specific reality.  They don't even trust nonprofits like Associated Press or NPR.  Outside of family, they get their news from internet personalities that they trust to tell it like it is... And consume doctored (or taken out of context) photographic and video evidence to buy into the next big conspiracy.

In fact, a recurring theme is that video evidence is often most heavily valued, and is frequently presented as arguments in favor of their beliefs.  For example:  to prove all protests were violent, let me present to you a video of some antifa/left-wing nut attacking innocent counter protesters.  Nevermind the omitted 30 seconds prior where the antifa person was actually protecting someone else from the same group.  Conservative consumers then use this evidence to extrapolate that all protests are violent and that liberals are destructive.  Any data that says otherwise is just a false narrative perpetuated by the elite.  They have video evidence proving liberals are bad.  This is why compilation videos are so popular among conservatives on social media.

So it's not that educated conservatives don't research, it's that they fundamentally disagree with the established reality and have a different way of finding "reliable" media with which they might "fact check" within their alternate reality.  This is why it's not uncommon to encounter conservatives who believe they are well read and informed, but seemingly have all the facts wrong.  Similarly they think you are ignorant, because how could you not know all the things that they know?  Ahh right, you are brainwashed by big media, that must be it.  Alternate facts and fake news was a thing well before the phrase got coined.

This is why when two people of opposing political leanings start interacting, they are seemingly speaking two different languages, with very little overlap in information.  Eventually you can crack the barrier if its someone you care about and you know all the right things to say, but most of the time people retreat before they start to question their reality or shift the topic to something you know nothing about so they can go on the attack.

Again, this is all just generalizations of my personal experience.  I apologise if this offends anyone.  I imagine the tendency to push out inconvenient information in a political media sphere is not unique to conservatives.  Maybe the issue is more that the types of media conservatives value and consume make them more susceptible to propaganda farms and internet personalities who really are just out to take advantage of them as an audience.  I don't know.

They're also deeply enamoured with Confederate Monuments which are literally giant participation trophies for losers.

This is the kind of response I'd expect from a middle schooler who hasn't taken a civics class. Think to yourself: If People vote, not land, why do we not just use a popular vote? Why did the framers of the country specifically reject doing what you said. To answer that question, take your second map and draw the state lines over it. Then you'll realize the problem with your assertion.

Understand that the civil war was between a common people. The war was a disagreement on the county  and the south wanted out (and the North had tried to succeed earlier. Look up the Hartford Convention). The South was a conquered nation, but it's leaders and heroes were still Americans. They let them honor their heroes because they had a certain respect for them. It's no different than letting Japan keep their castles after WW2. 

Modern America wants to get rid of them because the people running the country are so distanced from the heritage Americans. It would be China telling Britain to take down bust of Henry the 8th or Winston Churchill 

User was warned for this post- JWeincom

To add some more data, I've been researching conspiracy theories as part of a law journal article I'm reading. Whether one believes in conspiracy theories has less to do with mere exposure and more to do with with other factors that predispose one. Here are some key factors.

1. Being part of a politically powerless group- Those in less powerful groups tend to have a higher propensity to believe conspiracy theories, or rather those who perceive themselves to be in a less powerful group. That is why there is such an obsession with cancel culture and why these people always play the victim. Trump supporters and other far right people view themselves as being on the losing end of a culture war.

When you're in a group that is less powerful (in reality or perception) then being skeptical of the majority unifies the minority group, and vigilance helps prevent against abuse. Of course, it can be taken to an extreme where imaginary threats and reacted to as real ones.

2. Being a loser- Being on the losing side makes those more likely to believe in conspiracy theory to explain the loss. For instance, whether or not the claims were true, Hillary supporters were more likely before hearing any evidence to believe Russian interference or that Comey intentionally released his note to prevent her election. After Bush's election, democrats were more likely to believe the bush administration was complicit in 9/11. And Trump... well, obviously.

This also applies to personal losses. Those who are less successful than they want to be are likely to blame that on forces beyond their control conspiring against them.

3. Socialization- Probably somewhat in line with what you're saying. Many of the Trump cultists are Christian nationalists who have been primed to believe liberals are aiming to destroy their way of life. And a lot of them are straight up white supremacists who view the growth of racial minorities as a threat to them.

So when Trump (who by the way can't name a single bible verse) says things like "there will be no god" if Biden is elected, or that Mexico is bringing in an influx of violent rapists, he's speaking their language.

4. Most people are conspiracy theorists.- Estimates are that 63% of the population believe at least one conspiracy theory. That doesn't mean all of them are as fare gone as the magats, but it's more common than one would believe. 

What ties this together is that conspiracy theorists tend not to participate politics... or at least did not prior to 2016. Trump was willing to say anything they wanted to hear to the point where he refused to acknowledge that democrats are not a satanic cabal, retweeted white supremacist rhetoric, and claimed that the Catholic Joe Biden would end religion. So, he tapped into a large segment of the population that was previously not part of the electorate. You combine that with amount of people who are not Infowars crazy but are at least Sean Hannity crazy, and you have that 45% or so that will vote Trump.

Not going to cite everything but the book "American Conspiracy Theories" is a good place to start for those interested. What happens from here really depends.

There are plenty of conspiracy theorists on both sides (it was typically found that political affiliation is a strong indicator of which conspiracy theories are believed, but not in how likely one is to believe in conspiracy theories). The democrats have given a slight nod to some (I think the BLM movement is overall a reaction to a valid and important issue but has somewhat of a conspirational element) while Trump gave as full of an endorsement as was politically feasible.

Some republicans clearly think they need this base such as Ted Cruz, and will try to keep it at whatever cost. Others seem to be starting to realize that they can not keep this base happy because anything less than 100% acquiescence to them means you are an enemy (for fuck's sake they're after Mike Pence now who's as conservative as it possibly gets), and they can't maintain the mob while still winning enough moderate voters to be competitive.

We're focused on the capital attack, but the Democratic wins in Georgia may be even more significant. With control of the Senate on the line, a "Democratic senate will take your guns and abort every baby" campaign should have led to an EASY victory for both republicans. Loefler and Perdue were hobbled by their need to appease Trump's base and go along with the conspiracy theories. But it wasn't enough.

I think a lot of republicans are starting to realize Trumpism isn't the way to go, because it requires Trump. The cult doesn't really have any unifying ideology besides yay Trump and fuck the liberals. And it requires a cult of personality to keep them together. And Trump is the perfect fit. Because he has marketed himself as though he were a god for several decades before running for office. He is a pathological liar who will deny reality in a way that most people cannot. And he is a narcissist who will pander to literally anyone who professes love for him (QAnon) while demonizing anyone who shows the slightest bit of objection (Mike Pence). 

Without a figure like that, I don't think this strategy works. And without that rallying point, I think the conspiracy cult kind of goes back to what it was. It will never be gone, but if both parties reject it, then it won't be a force in politics. Then again, I'm not sure if Republicans can win without this base, so maybe they keep pursuing it to the bitter end.

are you okay, man? Like, you do realize the point you're trying to make is not backed up by the argument you're making, right? Like...popular vote? Sure...then Trump never would have gotten voted for in the first place. He lost by I think 5 million votes. and land DOESN'T vote. you deliberately came in here, posted a picture of a map that was misrepresentative of actual population, Showing that fewer people lived in bigger areas, thus giving the impression that more people voted for trump because he won in larger counties with smaller populations, then complained and called Hiku a middle schooler? For...showing a more accurate representation of where the population is? 

Come on man, this sort of blatant misrepresentation should be outright banned. IT's actually impressive how off-base you are compared to how confident you are in your wrong assertions. 

The electoral college system is fundamentally undemocratic and allows a minority of people to override the will of the majority.

Even ignoring the fact that this is irrelevant (See Hiku's post), this is still kind of nonsense. The Electoral College is an abstraction of the popular vote, which assigns the number of votes for a state based largely on population (technically it is based on something that is based largely on population). That is why Massachusetts, a fairly small state, is assigned more electoral votes than a larger, but less populous state like South Dakota. 

Land doesn't vote by any stretch of the imagination. The fact that the Electoral College exists is an incredibly sloppy way to argue the opposite. As such, that "Look how red this map is" map does little more than make you look like you have no idea what you are talking about.

We don't use a popular vote because of a compromise between the original colonies. That's all. They were motivated by their political reasons. The goal of the compromise was in no way to ensure that the will of the people of the nation as a whole was carried out.

So, this does nothing to counter the assertion that the majority of people did not want Trump. Nor does it support the notion that people "clearly" wanted Donald Trump. You're also harping on counties a lot for some reason, which is strange as they are irrelevant to both the electoral college and the popular vote. So whichever you think is the better metric, counties mean jack shit. You can win without the majority of states or counties.

Again, there is nobody here disputing that Donald Trump won the election in 2016. You could also argue that the electoral college leads to a fairer outcome than a straight popular vote. But there is no logical way to argue that the electoral college is a better way to determine the will of the people of the country as a whole than a direct popular vote. 

The problem isn't really the electoral college. If states apportioned electors by popular vote then the results would line up fairly nicely. There's also the issue of needing 270 votes to win which effectively prevents third parties. But there are also disadvantages to something like a parliamentary system. 

And even within the electoral college, counties don't matter. The county map is pretty much the same in 2020 as it was in 2016, but Trump lost. So, that's obviously not what the electoral college is designed for. Even if you do think that the electoral college is a better way to determine the will of the majority, the county map is still pointless. 

It's true, there's definitely drawbacks to a parliamentary system as well. But if we're talking about democracy in the purest sense, or the will of the majority of the people, then a straight popular vote is surely a better way to assess that than the current system.

Clearly, there's no better way to judge the will of the people than the popular vote. I'm not completely opposed to the concept of protection for smaller states but the Senate is so heavily skewed towards smaller states (the two fucking Dakotas have like 1/5 of the population of Florida and double the voting power), that I don't think that's necessary in the presidency as well. But it's unlikely to change. Although, if Texas winds up going the way it's going, I think the Republican party will be suddenly more amenable to rethinking the whole thing. Of course, if Texas shifted, then Democrats might be less willing.