Sinquefield $50 Million Donation

[cheeseman]

14 hours ago, WUH said:

NO ONE SHOULD EVER READ A QUESTION AS A VERIFIED FACT.

I asked a question and accepted a correction.

No need to misrepresent what I said.

A President could be weak on fundraising and survive four years if he or she has the support of the faculty.

I doubt it - money always wins.  No money and the faculty will turn also.

[cheeseman]

7 hours ago, slufanskip said:

The problem with the popular vote is you might as well just have the largest 8-10 cities vote. The coasts especially the East Coast will decide what happens for the entire country. 

Saw a stat the other day that said 51 senators are elected by 18% of the total population - how is this better than what you outlined?

[GBL_Bills]

Nm

[drkelsey55]

•  Unread Content

Billikens.com Main Board

Follow 12

Main message board for discussion of Billikens sports.

[brianstl]

The country isn’t a Democracy rules country. The country is set up deliberately to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  The founders thought that was as dangerous as the tyranny of a king. 

[cheeseman]

1 minute ago, brianstl said:

The country isn’t a Democracy rules country. The country is set up deliberately to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority.  The founders thought that was as dangerous as the tyranny of a king. 

That is what the Courts are for - you can not have the minority control the centers of governing power then why even bother to vote.

[slufanskip]

8 hours ago, hoppybeer said:

Not to drive this into a political debate, but I can't let this one stand without some sort of answer. The majority is the majority no matter where they happen to reside. Is it right to discount what the majority wants just because of where they live?

I'm not a fan of the electoral college, but it doesn't have nearly the impact that gerrymandering does. You get rid of gerrymandering and you fix a majority of the problems we have with our electoral system in my mind.

That sounds really nice. However people from different areas don't think alike or have the same values. The coasts own the majority of the people but middle America owns the majority of the land. Now obviously we don't elect by land ownership but middle America doesn't want NYC and/or LA deciding how they are governed. 

Regarding gerrymandering, I would agree it's a problem. 

And … it's offseason and this isn't really a political discussion as in liberal vs conservative as it is a debate on how things work. I'm enjoying it and as long as it stays civil I don't see the problem. The second it gets personal then fine shut it down 

[slufanskip]

8 hours ago, hoppybeer said:

Not to drive this into a political debate, but I can't let this one stand without some sort of answer. The majority is the majority no matter where they happen to reside. Is it right to discount what the majority wants just because of where they live?

I'm not a fan of the electoral college, but it doesn't have nearly the impact that gerrymandering does. You get rid of gerrymandering and you fix a majority of the problems we have with our electoral system in my mind.

oops repost

[slufanskip]

8 hours ago, hoppybeer said:

Not to drive this into a political debate, but I can't let this one stand without some sort of answer. The majority is the majority no matter where they happen to reside. Is it right to discount what the majority wants just because of where they live?

I'm not a fan of the electoral college, but it doesn't have nearly the impact that gerrymandering does. You get rid of gerrymandering and you fix a majority of the problems we have with our electoral system in my mind.

Sorry posted this 3 times lol. 2nd time was a mistake 3rd time I'm an idiot

[Taj79]

A Joe Conran sighting.  Oh joy.  Oh rapture. 

16 hours ago, Billikenswin said:

 

 

[slufanskip]

1 hour ago, cheeseman said:

Saw a stat the other day that said 51 senators are elected by 18% of the total population - how is this better than what you outlined?

and what portion of the USA does that 18% represent?

[Spoon-Balls]

10 hours ago, SluSignGuy said:

I am also opposed to the Electoral College - but moreso for why it was established:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

Fascinating. Thanks for sharing, Dr. Rogers. 

[billiken_roy]

11 hours ago, Spoon-Balls said:

In an ideal world, yes, it would be great to break the two party system. But in reality, the only plausible way to achieve that would be to abolish the electoral college and completely redo our current voting system. You would have to adopt a system like France where all of the presidential candidates (regardless of party) are pooled together in the primary and the top vote getters move on to the next round. 

Yeah get rid of the electoral college and pretty much let 5 or 6 cities decide everything.   That would be so awesome for the country to turn into San Francisco or Chicago.   Just what we need.

[Spoon-Balls]

8 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

Yeah get rid of the electoral college and pretty much let 5 or 6 cities decide everything.   That would be so awesome for the country to turn into San Francisco or Chicago.   Just what we need.

The alternative is to allow states like Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, both Dakotas, etc. to dictate the future of the country despite having only a small percentage of the country's population, in addition to some of the highest rates of welfare, poorest health outcomes, etc. Not to mention, those states aren't exactly economic engines for the nation...

Which brings up an interesting question, why do we even need 2 Dakotas?

[billikenfan05]

You know what we should abolish? The selection committee. It's just not representative of the entire NCAA.

[billiken_roy]

7 minutes ago, Spoon-Balls said:

The alternative is to allow states like Mississippi, Alabama, Tennessee, Kentucky, both Dakotas, etc. dictate the future of the country despite having only a small percentage of the country's population, in addition to some of the highest rates of welfare, poorest health outcomes, etc. Not to mention, those states aren't exactly economic engines for the nation...

Which brings up an interesting question, why do we even need 2 Dakotas?

i hardly think the electoral college 3 votes north dakota gets compared to the 55 votes california gets decides the future of the country.   but hillary dominates the high population urban votes and takes the popular votes and if that decided the election, who would hilliary be beholden to?   why even campaign or think about helping the outer population?  the electoral college was genius.   our forefathers were akin to gods.  

[Pistol]

19 minutes ago, billiken_roy said:

i hardly think the electoral college 3 votes north dakota gets compared to the 55 votes california gets decides the future of the country.   but hillary dominates the high population urban votes and takes the popular votes and if that decided the election, who would hilliary be beholden to?   why even campaign or think about helping the outer population?  the electoral college was genius.   our forefathers were akin to gods.  

So people who live in rural areas deserve their count to vote more than people who live in cities? Got it.

Also, be sure not to click on Steve's link about the Electoral College's origins. Many of these "gods" were maybe more interested in preserving slavery than having a just voting system.

[ACE]

54 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

That sounds really nice. However people from different areas don't think alike or have the same values. The coasts own the majority of the people but middle America owns the majority of the land. Now obviously we don't elect by land ownership but middle America doesn't want NYC and/or LA deciding how they are governed. 

Regarding gerrymandering, I would agree it's a problem. 

And … it's offseason and this isn't really a political discussion as in liberal vs conservative as it is a debate on how things work. I'm enjoying it and as long as it stays civil I don't see the problem. The second it gets personal then fine shut it down 

Conversely, folks in big cities don't want Alabama or Mississippi deciding how they are governed. 

[billiken_roy]

6 minutes ago, Pistol said:

So people who live in rural areas deserve their count to vote more than people who live in cities?

i dont see how it counts more  i see that it forces the prospective leaders to have to pay equal attention to the entire country not just the highest populated areas.   

[cheeseman]

55 minutes ago, slufanskip said:

and what portion of the USA does that 18% represent?

I am sure you can figure that out - look at the smallest population states and you can see how that can happen.  By the way it did not say they were 51 seats for one party. - it probably is simply a raw number of senate seats.

[ACE]

11 hours ago, SluSignGuy said:

I am also opposed to the Electoral College - but moreso for why it was established:

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/electoral-college-slavery-constitution

Imagine having basketball games where the team that scores more points doesn't actually win. Games would be decided by something like bench scoring or which team makes more free throws.

[slufan13]

I do find it a little annoying that one county in Illinois dictates how the entire state votes but I'll also say that the top 2 democrats and top 2 republicans in the last election made me sick so I didn't really care.

[Pistol]

Just now, billiken_roy said:

i dont see how it counts more  i see that it forces the prospective leaders to have to pay equal attention to the entire country not just the highest populated areas.   

It's not equal, though, and that's exactly the problem. Or, put another way, it is equal except that 20% of the population in rural areas gets as much attention as 80% of the population in urban areas. Or, even another way, national candidates only focus on the states seen as up for grabs and ignore the rest of the country. The smallest states get 3 no matter what, even if Wyoming wouldn't be given 3 proportionally. It makes no sense to have all of a state's available EC votes to go to a single candidate. It's not representative for any state. There are many, many other reasons that it's a terrible system but I'll let those go untouched because we're already so far off the rails from Sinquefeld's donation to SLU.

Call me crazy, but I think human beings deserve more voting power than land does. The EC is a non-functional relic of a flawed system from two centuries ago. It's nonsense.

[Old guy]

47 minutes ago, billikenfan05 said:

You know what we should abolish? The selection committee. It's just not representative of the entire NCAA.

Thank you for trying to get back to basketball.

[willie]

16 minutes ago, ACE said:

Imagine having basketball games where the team that scores more points doesn't actually win. Games would be decided by something like bench scoring or which team makes more free throws.

Best post in this discussion.