Skip to content

One Post's Electoral College

Political Discussion
91 14 2.4k
  • @calfoxwc said:

    Angry-White-Liberals.jpg

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "winning" 1+million votes down from the loser is NOT democracy.

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Full Definition of democracy

    plural

    democracies

    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

    Hmmm. Rule of the majority. How confusing this presidential election has become. It has a very warped sense of one person, one vote and does not meet the definition of "democracy".

    @texasag1969 said:

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "winning" 1+million votes down from the loser is NOT democracy.

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Full Definition of democracy

    plural

    democracies

    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

    Hmmm. Rule of the majority. How confusing this presidential election has become. It has a very warped sense of one person, one vote and does not meet the definition of "democracy".

    If we had a true democracy, we would vote on every law and politician by popular vote. And California and New York would dictate to the rest of the country what to do. You can keep true democracy.

  • @texasag1969 said:

    Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but "winning" 1+million votes down from the loser is NOT democracy.

    From Merriam-Webster:

    Full Definition of democracy

    plural

    democracies

    1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority

    Hmmm. Rule of the majority. How confusing this presidential election has become. It has a very warped sense of one person, one vote and does not meet the definition of "democracy".

    If we had a true democracy, we would vote on every law and politician by popular vote. And California and New York would dictate to the rest of the country what to do. You can keep true democracy.

    @logicisforsquares said:

    If we had a true democracy, we would vote on every law and politician by popular vote. And California and New York would dictate to the rest of the country what to do. You can keep true democracy.

    No doubt if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't be too happy winning the popular vote and still losing an election but I see the genius of the founders of this country and what they were trying to do in setting the country to be a republic and not a true democracy.Even if I were on the losing side of the issue I would not want to change our form of government.

  • @logicisforsquares said:

    If we had a true democracy, we would vote on every law and politician by popular vote. And California and New York would dictate to the rest of the country what to do. You can keep true democracy.

    No doubt if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't be too happy winning the popular vote and still losing an election but I see the genius of the founders of this country and what they were trying to do in setting the country to be a republic and not a true democracy.Even if I were on the losing side of the issue I would not want to change our form of government.

    @oldbrownsfan said:

    No doubt if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't be too happy winning the popular vote and still losing an election but I see the genius of the founders of this country and what they were trying to do in setting the country to be a republic and not a true democracy.Even if I were on the losing side of the issue I would not want to change our form of government.

    Presiden-elect Trump disagrees, btw.

  • @oldbrownsfan said:

    No doubt if the shoe was on the other foot I wouldn't be too happy winning the popular vote and still losing an election but I see the genius of the founders of this country and what they were trying to do in setting the country to be a republic and not a true democracy.Even if I were on the losing side of the issue I would not want to change our form of government.

    Presiden-elect Trump disagrees, btw.

    @gftchris said:

    Presiden-elect Trump disagrees, btw.

    Not any more.

  • Well once you get above 1172 at OSU the math is more specialized. Technically it's math topics for engineers but it's really just specialized calculus 3.

  • Yeah I don't doubt. For me in my final year I took the 'interesting' courses - abstract theoretical stuff - and some 'useful' courses, like decision maths, financial principles etc. whereas the two years leading up to it had been more general, things like real/complex variable theory, symmetry and groups, linear algebra, blah-de-blah.

    Then masters was some finance stuff, so pretty trival maths, but also stochastic calculus, more advanced stats (I hate stats), numerical methods for estimating a solution to an insoluble SDE etc. that kind of thing.

  • @bbedward said:

    Didn't you hear? Ken Bone is satan now because he wants to lick Jennifer Lawrence's butthole.

    To be fair I think he just said he liked it.

    Oh, The Fappening. That crazy internet

    @mld-woody said:

    To be fair I think he just said he liked it.

    Oh, The Fappening. That crazy internet

    Jennifer Lawrence's nudes bored me. As an actress I'd hoped she'd have more imagination.

  • Yeah I don't doubt. For me in my final year I took the 'interesting' courses - abstract theoretical stuff - and some 'useful' courses, like decision maths, financial principles etc. whereas the two years leading up to it had been more general, things like real/complex variable theory, symmetry and groups, linear algebra, blah-de-blah.

    Then masters was some finance stuff, so pretty trival maths, but also stochastic calculus, more advanced stats (I hate stats), numerical methods for estimating a solution to an insoluble SDE etc. that kind of thing.

    @gftchris said:

    Yeah I don't doubt. For me in my final year I took the 'interesting' courses - abstract theoretical stuff - and some 'useful' courses, like decision maths, financial principles etc. whereas the two years leading up to it had been more general, things like real/complex variable theory, symmetry and groups, linear algebra, blah-de-blah.

    Then masters was some finance stuff, so pretty trival maths, but also stochastic calculus, more advanced stats (I hate stats), numerical methods for estimating a solution to an insoluble SDE etc. that kind of thing.

    Took Honors Theoretical Differential Equations as a freshman. Impressive sounding course. Wouldn't recommend it haha.

    Liner/Matrix Algebra was much more useful. Though the end of the class started to get pretty Theoretical and more difficult.

  • Oh, and thus has been my experience with the calc numbers

    Calc 1 (equivalent of AP Calc AB) - Beginning calc stuff. Deferentiating

    Calc 2 (equivalent of AP Calc BC) - Adds in Integrals and other stuff. Maybe series? Don't remember. Weed out course for engineering at University

    Calc 3 - Multi Variable

    Calc 4 - Diffy Q's

  • 65b169673fc422ef6c44b7058e214c88f00600c4

  • Yeah I don't doubt. For me in my final year I took the 'interesting' courses - abstract theoretical stuff - and some 'useful' courses, like decision maths, financial principles etc. whereas the two years leading up to it had been more general, things like real/complex variable theory, symmetry and groups, linear algebra, blah-de-blah.

    Then masters was some finance stuff, so pretty trival maths, but also stochastic calculus, more advanced stats (I hate stats), numerical methods for estimating a solution to an insoluble SDE etc. that kind of thing.

    @gftchris said:

    Yeah I don't doubt. For me in my final year I took the 'interesting' courses - abstract theoretical stuff - and some 'useful' courses, like decision maths, financial principles etc. whereas the two years leading up to it had been more general, things like real/complex variable theory, symmetry and groups, linear algebra, blah-de-blah.

    Then masters was some finance stuff, so pretty trival maths, but also stochastic calculus, more advanced stats (I hate stats), numerical methods for estimating a solution to an insoluble SDE etc. that kind of thing.

    she is impressed

    stock-photo-passion-for-chocolate-260831

  • IMG_0460-620x451.jpg

  • @oldbrownsfan said:

    IMG_0460-620x451.jpg

    So we should vote based on land mass?

  • @oldbrownsfan said:

    IMG_0460-620x451.jpg

    So we should vote based on land mass?

    @mld-woody said:

    So we should vote based on land mass?

    So we should keep our electoral college (which we will anyway...It's not going anywhere)

  • Look, in order to abolish the electoral college 38 states would have to agree with that. Of those 38 states 33 or more would instantly become irrelevant in terms of say that they had. And that, as they say, is that.

  • I don't want to debate whether or not something could happen, but whether it should. "It could never change" isn't an argument for th EC

  • It should not happen. Pure Democracy devolves into mob rule pretty quickly.

  • Who said that's the only other option?

  • Maybe proportionally awarded electoral votes.

  • Maybe proportionally awarded electoral votes.

    @bbedward said:

    Maybe proportionally awarded electoral votes.

    I think that would make more sense