7 hours ago, bmags said:

I feel like this is a common view from STEM majors, but I majored in Journalism, my wife majored in English, we both have technical-ish (or at least, numbers driven) jobs in banking/tech industry, and both of us would say we use our majors every single day.

Now, I wish I would have studied this or that, and known now what I knew then, etc, but when people study things they like the most important thing is they dive in and learn how to work and enjoy that process. Sociology majors leave with great research and stat backgrounds that are very useful in many businesses right now. English majors have great communication and creative thinking minds that can take on different tasks.

The idea that there is a skills mismatch after employment is down to 3.8 and essentially non-existent among college grads is just not backed up by much.

Just curious, did you have great math skills growing up and just majored in journalism? I decided against journalism for fear that I wouldn’t get a good job and because I could still write as a business major. I would be curious to hear what you would have done otherwise knowing what you know know then and would be curious about what you and others think about your last sentence.

16 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

 

That doesn't mean it can't be changed but it's hard to see how it would be allowed without a constitutional amendment. I suspect it will be challenged and decided by the supreme court eventually.

 

There is nothing about being a republic that requires a system like the electoral college. There is nothing anti-republican about having federal offices determined by popular vote and not an arcane institution that was never even used for its original purposes.

16 hours ago, wrathofhahn said:

 

He lost the popular vote if you use common sense and consider the two democrats well democrats which I do. Also his share of the total vote was less then 40%, 39.8 to be exact. Trump won 46.1 share of the total votes cast for reference. So according to how democrats want to decide elections now Abraham Lincoln would have never been president. Just something to think about.

"If you combine two candidates into one, the other person would have lost" is a weird argument.

Lincoln won a plurality. In a first-past-the-post system, that should mean he's President. 

13 hours ago, The Beast said:

Yeah, I can’t buy that either. I originally went to school to be a high school English teacher and wound up with a business degree and work in insurance. Before all of my responsibilities happened, I wish I would have become something useful, like a Physical Therapist or a Nurse.

Well I consider a degree to be a English teacher to be useful. 

14 hours ago, The Beast said:

Yeah, I can’t buy that either. I originally went to school to be a high school English teacher and wound up with a business degree and work in insurance. Before all of my responsibilities happened, I wish I would have become something useful, like a Physical Therapist or a Nurse.

???

38 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

There is nothing about being a republic that requires a system like the electoral college. There is nothing anti-republican about having federal offices determined by popular vote and not an arcane institution that was never even used for its original purposes.

No, but it makes sure even a minority view is represented.

It seems more that it makes sure that a minority conservative view controls and overrules the majority view. 

9 minutes ago, StrangeSox said:

It seems more that it makes sure that a minority conservative view controls and overrules the majority view. 

this

1 hour ago, StrangeSox said:

It seems more that it makes sure that a minority conservative view controls and overrules the majority view. 

And conveniently...a white minority, which I'm sure happens totally by accident. 

?

On 10/9/2018 at 9:16 AM, Dick Allen said:

But not to the extent it is today. 250 years ago, they didn't anticipate 40 million people in one state and 1.2 in another.

Not by a factor of 40, but according to this website (trying to find a more legitimate source), in 1770 Virginia had 447k while Georgia had 23k (a factor of about 20). So the idea that they didn't know there were very large population centers/states versus smaller ones isn't true.

Edited October 10, 20187 yr by Jenksismyhero

1790 Census Data

Even though there were cities, the country as a whole was much, much more agrarian and rural. This was pre-industrial revolution. It was a completely difference society and economy with completely different demographics and population distributions.

The largest city in the country at the time was NYC, it a paltry 33k. The tenth largest was 5.5k.

https://www.census.gov/history/www/through_the_decades/fast_facts/1790_fast_facts.html

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

There is nothing about being a republic that requires a system like the electoral college. There is nothing anti-republican about having federal offices determined by popular vote and not an arcane institution that was never even used for its original purposes.

This is nonsense the founders knew exactly what they were doing when they did it and what the ramifications were versus rural-urban and contrary to what has been posted otherwise there has always been cities and there has always been rural. If anything the divide was even greater at the time.

But besides all that if Democrats want change they should go through the constitution like everyone else. I tend to think it works well and democrats only seem concerned after they lose an election I didn't hear Obama after beating McCain offer to consult Republicans despite winning less 60 percent of the vote. I mean if you go straight off the vote (proportional representation) he wouldn't have had a majority in congress.

Where does this majoritarian streak end? Are you really advocating a system in which 14% of the counties decides how 86% of the rest of the country lives because that is the percentage of America voted for Hillary by county and don't tell me that is fair. What does Sanfran or NYC citizens know or care about what is happening in west Virginia or OK?

The founders designed a system where every voice would be heard and the concerns of the people living in these small states couldn't be ignored but wouldn't be given equal weight to the more populous states. That was a feature of the constitution not a bug and it was also demanded by many of these states before rejoining the union.

I for one think it's important that a candidate who says they want be president have national appeal beyond just California and NYC. For all this talk of Trump doing this or doing that he was a national candidate. He won roughly 2649 counties to Hillary to 503. He won 30 states to Hillary 20. Trump was a national candidate Hillary was not.

He deserved to be president on that basis and the EC worked exactly as the founders intended.

 

Edited October 10, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

"If you combine two candidates into one, the other person would have lost" is a weird argument.

Lincoln won a plurality. In a first-past-the-post system, that should mean he's President. 

If we count the Green Part as Democrats because they both enjoy renewable energy, they would have won!

3 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

It seems more that it makes sure that a minority conservative view controls and overrules the majority view. 

It's still the minority as you like to point out. Everyone should have a voice and representation. Just because it historically disagrees with your viewpoint doesn't mean they shouldn't have representation.

2 hours ago, Balta1701 said:

And conveniently...a white minority, which I'm sure happens totally by accident. 

You mean that it's an accident that the white minority lives in more rural areas? There are plenty of non-white minority living in the rural areas of the south. Not typically in Idaho or Wyoming though.

13 minutes ago, wrathofhahn said:

This is nonsense the founders knew exactly what they were doing when they did it and what the ramifications were versus rural-urban and contrary to what has been posted otherwise there has always been cities and there has always been rural. If anything the divide was even greater at the time.

But besides all that if Democrats want change they should go through the constitution like everyone else. I tend to think it works well and democrats only seem concerned after they lose an election I didn't hear Obama after beating McCain offer to consult Republicans despite winning less 60 percent of the vote. I mean if you go straight off the vote (proportional representation) he wouldn't have had a majority in congress.

Where does this majoritarian streak end? Are you really advocating a system in which 14% of the counties decides how 86% of the rest of the country lives because that is the percentage of America voted for Hillary by county and don't tell me that is fair. What does Sanfran or NYC citizens know or care about what is happening in west Virginia or OK?

The founders designed a system where every voice would be heard and the concerns of the people living in these small states couldn't be ignored but wouldn't be given equal weight to the more populous states. That was a feature of the constitution not a bug and it was also demanded by many of these states before rejoining the union.

I for one think it's important that a candidate who says they want be president have national appeal beyond just California and NYC. For all this talk of Trump doing this or doing that he was a national candidate. He won roughly 2649 counties to Hillary to 503. He won 30 states to Hillary 20. Trump was a national candidate Hillary was not.

He deserved to be president on that basis and the EC worked exactly as the founders intended.

 

What were the founders' thoughts on gerrymandering, and trying to stifle the vote?

3 minutes ago, Quinarvy said:

If we count the Green Part as Democrats because they both enjoy renewable energy, they would have won!

The party split before the election. You guys are being obtuse you want to pretend the Northern Democrats and Southern Democrats are not all Democrats fine.

Just now, Dick Allen said:

What were the founders' thoughts on gerrymandering, and trying to stifle the vote?

Both sides are guilty of that depending on who is in power. Ask Madigan.

4 hours ago, StrangeSox said:

"If you combine two candidates into one, the other person would have lost" is a weird argument.

Lincoln won a plurality. In a first-past-the-post system, that should mean he's President. 

Which is funny considering how many times I have seen Democrats blame other parties for losing elections.

2 minutes ago, Dick Allen said:

What were the founders' thoughts on gerrymandering, and trying to stifle the vote?

There were pretty pro both of those things.

4 hours ago, GoSox05 said:

Well I consider a degree to be a English teacher to be useful. 

It was useful, if I actually liked literature and not just newspapers.

Edited October 10, 20187 yr by The Beast

49 minutes ago, ptatc said:

It's still the minority as you like to point out. Everyone should have a voice and representation. Just because it historically disagrees with your viewpoint doesn't mean they shouldn't have representation.

They should have representation proportional to their political support.

50 minutes ago, southsider2k5 said:

Which is funny considering how many times I have seen Democrats blame other parties for losing elections.

They blame everyone else it seems. It's also nonsense I would think Gary Johnson who received roughly three times the vote of the Jill Stein caused more hurt to Trump then Stein did to Hillary. The libertarian party platform was tailor made for the never trumpers. Limited government. Open borders. Low taxes. No regulation.

Yet, somehow Hillary and her surrogates suggested these people cost them the election. They never were going to vote democrat.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2012/11/20/the-gops-growing-libertarian-problem/?utm_term=.9896c190b814

Edited October 10, 20187 yr by wrathofhahn

4 hours ago, ptatc said:

???

My brother is a PT. Too bad I wasn’t on the normal science/math track in high school since I might have enjoyed Anatomy and Physiology and perhaps Physics. I didn’t care much for Chemistry (I got a C when I took it) and I don’t remember Biology. Not sure how much chemistry is needed in a PT program but doing a job where you can be on your feet all day and help people sure sounds good! I’ve got responsibilities now with a house and wife, but maybe when my job gets automated or if I fail at Data Science maybe I will check out Health Care careers again.