Should the Electoral College Be Eliminated?

david starling

Well-known member
I don't think it's necessary. For the last 32 Presidential Elections, the results of the Electoral College vote, and the national Popular vote, yielded the same result in all but ONE--the 2016 Election.

This gave the false impression that the Electoral College is necessary to prevent the more populated States from overwhelming the less populated States in choosing the President. But, given the 1/31 times this has occurred, that's clearly not the case.

The explanation for the one time it did occur in 128 years can be identified as the illegal foreign, mostly Russian, interference with the 2016 Election. So, that was an aberration, not an endemic situation. Steps have been taken to prevent foreign interference from happening again, so we should expect the Electoral and Popular vote results to match up as usual in 2020, based on the long historical record.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Interesting that in 2004, John Kerry came close to squeaking out a win in the Electoral College vote, while losing the Popular-vote by a wide margin. But, in the end, the results matched up, as usual.

If Kerry had managed to win, it would have been Republicans calling for an end to the Electoral College!
 

aquarius7000

Well-known member
One thing you gotta say for the president - that Sun-Uranus does make him 'unique' in that he creates history in different ways.
I don't think it's necessary. For the last 32 Presidential Elections, the results of the Electoral College vote, and the national Popular vote, yielded the same result in all but ONE--the 2016 Election.

This gave the false impression that the Electoral College is necessary to prevent the more populated States from overwhelming the less populated States in choosing the President. But, given the 1/31 times this has occurred, that's clearly not the case.

The explanation for the one time it did occur in 128 years can be identified as the illegal foreign, mostly Russian, interference with the 2016 Election. So, that was an aberration, not an endemic situation. Steps have been taken to prevent foreign interference from happening again, so we should expect the Electoral and Popular vote results to match up as usual in 2020, based on the long historical record.
 

david starling

Well-known member
One thing you gotta say for the president - that Sun-Uranus does make him 'unique' in that he creates history in different ways.

Well, it hasn't been proven that Trump asked for the illegal foreign interference with the 2016 Election that gave him the win, so he can't fairly be said to have created history in that regard.

I'd say his Moon in Sagittarius does give him a great deal of good luck, though. For example, Trump didn't create the Black Lives Matter movement, but the violence now associated with it is certainly working to his advantage.
 

david starling

Well-known member
One thing you gotta say for the president - that Sun-Uranus does make him 'unique' in that he creates history in different ways.

On second thought, that Sun/NN/Ura conjunction in Gemini does give him catalytic ability, which can alter history. It also explains his erratic personality.
 

david starling

Well-known member
I'm saying "it's not necessary" in two ways:

The Electoral College system isn't necessary to protect the less populated States from being overwhelmed by the more populated States when it comes to electing the President. There's ample proof of that, over the last 128 years.

And, since it doesn't affect the outcome of the Election--minus illegal, outside interference, which is preventable--it's also not necessary to eliminate the Electoral College system, on a practical basis.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
5 out of 45 presidents became presidents in this way, and 5 out of a total of 58 elections, so that's a sizable enough probability to keep it in. Whether or not you think they make good presidents is a whole other question. For instance George W Bush is probably one of the worst presidents to ever hold office because it was thanks to his family and others in on the conspiracy that the Sept 11 attacks were orchestrated. But then I also question presidents who DID win the Popular vote as well, such as Obama and Clinton. So it won't yield perfect outcomes either way. But at the end of the day it isn't all about you or me and what we like, so let's be adults about this.

Are you counting Bush/Gore? When the final Florida vote-count was completed, it turned out that Bush had lost both the Electoral and the Popular. So, they matched, even though the Republican-dominated Supreme Court refused to acknowledge it.

Chiamaria, I just may be in agreement with you, concerning the value of the Electoral College system, for this reason: In 2004, John Kerry was only 60,000 votes short of winning the Popular-vote in Ohio. If he had won in Ohio, he would have won the Electoral College vote by a slim margin. Bush had a huge plurality in the national Popular-vote, but Kerry did at least come close to becoming President and Commander-in-Chief. Of course, the damage was already done, but Kerry just might have handled the aftermath far better.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Remember, in the last 128 years, only ONE President was elected in the Electoral College even though he lost the Popular vote. And, that one Election, in 2016, was an aberration, due to illegal foreign interference which intentionally targeted the Electoral College system. For that reason, I personally exclude it from the data set, and say that not even ONE truly legitimate Presidential election since 1888 has had a mismatch between the Electoral College and Popular votes.

I especially want to dispel the myth that the less populated States need the Electoral College system to protect them from being overwhelmed by the more populated States when it comes to electing the President. John Kerry, for example, was the choice of the more populated States, which lost the national Popular-vote but were nearly saved by the Electoral College vote.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Here's something: Were ANY of the Presidential elections truly legitimate before 1920? That's when women gained the right to vote.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Here's another one: Were ANY of the Presidential elections truly legitimate until after the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965? Minorities, especially the black vote so important in recent Elections, was deliberately suppressed until 1968.
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Does it really make a diference david?

Leaving personal politics aside, the democrats aren't in a strong position to win this year.

They have a weak candidate who people see as the "anti-trump" vote, rather than a leader figure on its own. The covid19 lockdowns, the BLM protests, the fake impeachment, the mass media fake news, etc., all backfired on democrats.

Lot of people switching sides, bernie bros not happy with Biden, etc.

It doesn't really look like Biden can win, with or without the electoral college.

Had bernie been the runner, would have been a different story. People did see Bernie as a leader.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Does it really make a diference david?

Leaving personal politics aside, the democrats aren't in a strong position to win this year.

They have a weak candidate who people see as the "anti-trump" vote, rather than a leader figure on its own. The covid19 lockdowns, the BLM protests, the fake impeachment, the mass media fake news, etc., all backfired on democrats.

Lot of people switching sides, bernie bros not happy with Biden, etc.

It doesn't really look like Biden can win, with or without the electoral college.

Had bernie been the runner, would have been a different story. People did see Bernie as a leader.

Yeah, but in the swing-States, being labeled a "Commie" is a big deal.

Hey, what's this about Bush Jr. possibly endorsing Biden? Word is, Trump thinks it would work in his favor.

Isn't Argentina on lockdown, wearing masks, and keeping 6 feet apart?
Are you unconvinced that's all necessary?
 

Dirius

Well-known member
Yeah, but in the swing-States, being labeled a "Commie" is a big deal.

Hey, what's this about Bush Jr. possibly endorsing Biden? Word is, Trump thinks it would work in his favor.

Isn't Argentina on lockdown, wearing masks, and keeping 6 feet apart?
Are you unconvinced that's all necessary?

Whether its necessary or not doesn't really matter, a lot of people are not going to like the lockdowns.

Republicans were more flexible.... while democrats harsher. Granted, the biggest cities are in Blue states so there may be a reason. But the political cost from the lockdowns will be larger and more noticeable for democrats.

Let me clarify that this is just my opinion. Maybe I'm wrong on this - but the general sentiment on the internet would suggest democrats are losing a lot of support.
 
Last edited:

david starling

Well-known member
Still a long way to go! October's really the bellwether month this year.
Polls now are almost all Biden, except for Ohio (Trump+1) in the swing-States.

I think there may be some "hype burnout", where people just want things to calm down. Too much hell-raising and hoopla for many.
 

david starling

Well-known member
Here's a unique scenario: Biden picks a really focused, articulate VP with some good Swing-State appeal. Then, when it's time for the debates, he suddenly comes down with a mild, non-life-threatening case of the virus, and she has to stand in for him. Could happen!
 

david starling

Well-known member
The winner-take-all Electoral College system is so in tune with the Popular-vote of "We, the People", I see no reason to change it. Thomas Jefferson won the Presidency under this system, after having lost the previous election using a Congressional Districting system that is heavily subject to gerrymandering.

Democrats are frantically attempting to alter or eliminate the current Electoral College system because they haven't realized:

1) Al Gore DID WIN both the Electoral AND the Popular votes in the 2000 Election, but the Republican-dominated Supreme Court refused to accept that result, with the excuse that the final vote-count in Florida "took too long".

2) The 2016 Election was an aberration, not typical of the 128 year history of the matching Electoral and Popular vote-results. It was skewed, due to illegal foreign interference which specifically targeted the Electoral College system itself, and it's highly doubtful that such interference will happen again.
 
Top