Topic: Trumpmageddon

[Snarky]

Without giving the matter close consideration, I think this might be a case of Simpson's Paradox, where a real effect (correlation between university education and Trump support) is hidden by differential turnout and the group sizes being different. (That does not necessarily mean that Trump draws more support from non-graduates than other Republicans do, but that's a different question.)

[Honza]

Ok, I see how you arrived at the numbers (and feel stupid )

I'm still confused by the implications though, so let me go real slow:

- You pick a random college grad. They are more likely to vote for Clinton than for Trump.
- You pick a random non-college grad. They are slightly more likely to vote for Trump than for Clinton.
- Now the part that confuses me: both are equally likely to vote for Trump? So would this mean that as long as you are deciding whether to vote for Trump, education doesn't matter, but once you decide not to vote for him, education influences whether you vote for Hillary instead or don't vote at all?

Also does the 37/63 in the Pew poll compared to your 30/70 change anything about this?

[Ali]

I'm also extremely confused, and feel like I'm about to be conclusively proven wrong. (Nonetheless, I'm enjoying the conversation more now than a couple of days ago.) I would love it if someone could put me right here. The 37/63 figure suggests to me that people with a college education are both more likely to vote and more likely to vote Democrat. But I don't think it tells us what proportion of the country has a college-education.

[KyriakosCH]

Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).

[WHAM]

Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).

And India produces the highest number of software engineers per year.
The number of graduates alone doesn't tell the whole story, and this is especially the case in the US which is, as said, 50 countries wearing a trench coat. One has to consider things like which states have those degrees, how are they distributed, what kinds of degrees they are and what kind of merit and credentials do the schools granting them have. A high number of graduates means nothing if the quality of education is down in the dumps.

[Blondbraid]

Speaking of US colleges, there's that whole system with the electoral college. From what I've read, Hillary actually got 3 million more votes from the total population, but Trump won the vote in more different US states,
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.

[WHAM]

Speaking of US colleges, there's that whole system with the electoral college. From what I've read, Hillary actually got 3 million more votes from the total population, but Trump won the vote in more different US states,
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.

Except if you look at the history and purpose of the electoral college, you'll find that it's doing pretty much exactly what it was designed to do, and a major reason for it being there is, again, the fact that the US is basically 50 countries. The size and scope, along with the varied interests between different states, pretty much necessitates a system like the electoral college to at least try and keep a few densely populated states controlling all of the more sparsely controlled ones.

[Blondbraid]

Speaking of US colleges, there's that whole system with the electoral college. From what I've read, Hillary actually got 3 million more votes from the total population, but Trump won the vote in more different US states,
which just goes to show how antiquated and out of touch most of their political system is. Land doesn't vote, people do.

Except if you look at the history and purpose of the electoral college, you'll find that it's doing pretty much exactly what it was designed to do, and a major reason for it being there is, again, the fact that the US is basically 50 countries. The size and scope, along with the varied interests between different states, pretty much necessitates a system like the electoral college to at least try and keep a few densely populated states controlling all of the more sparsely controlled ones.

It's an argument I've heard before and not a particularly good one to boot. How's it fairer that, instead of risking populated states having more say than the sparser ones, somebody in Wyoming gets to have a vote that's worth more than that of someone in California?

And that's not even mentioning its ties to slavery...

[Snarky]

The Electoral College is not remotely functioning as originally envisioned. (And hasn't for about two hundred years.) A key reason for the system was to empower an independent, deliberative panel that could critically evaluate each candidate for president. As per the Federalist Papers (No. 68):

It was equally desirable, that the immediate election should be made by men most capable of analyzing the qualities adapted to the station, and acting under circumstances favorable to deliberation, and to a judicious combination of all the reasons and inducements which were proper to govern their choice. A small number of persons, selected by their fellow-citizens from the general mass, will be most likely to possess the information and discernment requisite to such complicated investigations. […]

They have not made the appointment of the President to depend on any preexisting bodies of men, who might be tampered with beforehand to prostitute their votes; but they have referred it in the first instance to an immediate act of the people of America, to be exerted in the choice of persons for the temporary and sole purpose of making the appointment. And they have excluded from eligibility to this trust, all those who from situation might be suspected of too great devotion to the President in office.

The purpose of this was to ensure that unfit and populist candidates would not be selected:

And as the electors, chosen in each State, are to assemble and vote in the State in which they are chosen, this detached and divided situation will expose them much less to heats and ferments, which might be communicated from them to the people, than if they were all to be convened at one time, in one place.  […]

The process of election affords a moral certainty, that the office of President will never fall to the lot of any man who is not in an eminent degree endowed with the requisite qualifications. Talents for low intrigue, and the little arts of popularity, may alone suffice to elevate a man to the first honors in a single State; but it will require other talents, and a different kind of merit, to establish him in the esteem and confidence of the whole Union, or of so considerable a portion of it as would be necessary to make him a successful candidate for the distinguished office of President of the United States. It will not be too strong to say, that there will be a constant probability of seeing the station filled by characters pre-eminent for ability and virtue.

By picking the electors by popular vote, on slates that are strongly committed to a given candidate, the whole notion of the deliberative, independent body is lost. As for vetting and rejecting unfit candidates, the system has—in part for that reason—plainly failed.

Of course, one major flaw of the US Constitution is that it originally failed to account for political parties, simply hoping that they would not form rather than designing a system that would either be compatible with them or would discourage them (and therefore, the Electoral College could never work as idealized, as the 1800 election demonstrated); and second that it has been patched haphazardly over the centuries with various amendments, laws and constitutional interpretations without any overarching design vision, so that it's difficult to really ascribe any "intention" behind the system as it now exists.

As for the idea that "the US is basically 50 countries," that was the original idea: a union of states. But since the Civil War at the latest, it is plainly one country—albeit one with considerable federalism. However, the same is true of e.g. the UK (where I believe Scotland has a whole separate school system), and Germany. And while states still handle some important policy areas (while others are handled even more locally: much of educational policy, for example), both politics and policy-making is increasingly nationalized.

[WHAM]

It's true to say the electoral college is not working as intended (though its idea still stands). Its power and purpose is greatly diminished, and it is up to the US government, elected by its people, to fix things one way or the other. Whether that means restoring independence and power to it, or disassembling the system and replacing it with a direct vote, both have arguments for and against. The issue with that, however, comes back to an ill-informed and disinterested populace, with a vast majority of Americans not even knowing what the Electoral College is or how it works. To such a voterbase it would be quite difficult for politicians to campaign on changing the system, outside of generic "drain the swamp" claims as made by Trump. People want a change, they just don't know what kind of change or why or how.

The two party system also gives the US the look of a failed democracy, with each and every vote resulting in nearly half of the population not being catered to. Meanwhile in still functioning multi party democracies you can still get 70%+ support for initiatives and far more than 52% of voter support for the elected government.

[Spelaeologist]

(It's awkward for me to play a double role of mod and participant in discussions like this. We should get a dedicated mod for this forum.)

Pick me, pick me.  What a chance in years.

Have always dreamed of becoming one here and think I have what it takes to be good mod material.

Thank you for considering me.

[Misj']

Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).

I don't think that map is correct.

SUMMARY: the official Dutch numbers contradict this map; and it's likely the map is an incorrect representation based on a misunderstanding of the education-structure and -level in non-US countries.

Let me first say, I only looked at the Dutch data (because I'm Dutch). The data I found was from 2017, so It's a bit more recent, and some discrepancies might be explained by that. But...the original map (https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education) states that in the Netherlands tertiary education was at 15.63% as opposed to the 26.76% in the USA. So being Dutch I was quite puzzled with that. Because I kinda feel I have some grasp on the world I live in. Both within my frame of reference, and somewhat outside. Though I'm absolutely certain there are a lot of people that I that are not represented in 'my' world.

Anyway, I started looking at some numbers. A Dutch TV-news-site from 2017, the Dutch Center for Statistics, and a government-site on education in numbers. And what I found was quite different from the map.

First of all, you need to understand that in the Netherlands - as with most countries - there a several levels of tertiary education. For simplicities sake just refer to them as low, medium, high, and university (and there's of course also PhD's and stuff). I'm going to use the government site, as it had lower numbers than the news-site (numbers that prove my point less well). If you look solely at the higher education - which, as I said, is a subset of the Dutch tertiary education - you see that in 2010 the actual numbers were 17.4 + 9.4 = 26.8%. In 2019 those numbers have risen to 20.6 + 11.9 = 32.5%. As I said, the actual numbers are higher because we only look at the higher tertiary education (simplified: the bachelor- and master-levels). The levels are of course different, if you solely look at the master-levels (11.9% in 2019). But...

a. that's not what the map claimed to be about, and b. you cannot directly compare universities in one country to another. For example you would not have - to be kinda on topic - have a Trump university. In the Netherlands this would be considered a medium level business school (most likely not even a higher-level business school because of the way it was organized). As an analogy, compare the term 'professor'. In the Netherlands it's a title reserved for a very select group. In simplified (though slightly incorrect) terms he's the chair of a scientific department (although a departement at a Dutch university would be something different from this department). In some countries, however, anyone with tenure is referred to as a professor. And then there are even countries (and I think that might be true for the US as well) where anyone teaching at an academic institute is called a professor. Which - to me - makes no sense at all...but that's because of my Dutch background.

So yeah...anyway, I understand the confusion. Also, the map was based on the data from Barro and Lee. Who just happen to both be associated with Harvard University in the USA. So I understand why their data would be skewed towards the US's approach to education. I'm not claiming their data is wrong (though I trust the official Dutch numbers much more). I'm just saying it doesn't measure what the map claimed it does.

Finally - and most importantly - I do not want to be a moderator, and I think Snarky, Wham, Blondbeard and everyone else here who still knows me, knows I would do a terrible job and would never offer it it me.

[Blondbraid]

Who's Blondbeard? 

[Cassiebsg]

I guess some people don't know the difference between a braid and a beard.  More likely, though, he's like my son, reading the first few letters and guessing the word... it gives some odd questions/sentences once in a while. 

[Misj']

Who's Blondbeard? 

You don't know him? - Great guy!

No really, my appologies (it's not even like you have the most difficult name here...I mean, how hard is it to write Braidedbeard, really?). I could blame dyslexia, the auto-correct, that at I was thinking of pirates lately, or the fact that I was tired. But in reality I was just typing lazily. Let's just pretend I edited the post, and call it fake news...

[KyriakosCH]

Going by some map I saw a few days ago, the US actually is among the leading countries in percentage of the population with one university degree (or more).

I don't think that map is correct.

SUMMARY: the official Dutch numbers contradict this map; and it's likely the map is an incorrect representation based on a misunderstanding of the education-structure and -level in non-US countries.

Let me first say, I only looked at the Dutch data (because I'm Dutch). The data I found was from 2017, so It's a bit more recent, and some discrepancies might be explained by that. But...the original map (https://ourworldindata.org/tertiary-education) states that in the Netherlands tertiary education was at 15.63% as opposed to the 26.76% in the USA. So being Dutch I was quite puzzled with that. Because I kinda feel I have some grasp on the world I live in. Both within my frame of reference, and somewhat outside. Though I'm absolutely certain there are a lot of people that I that are not represented in 'my' world.

Anyway, I started looking at some numbers. A Dutch TV-news-site from 2017, the Dutch Center for Statistics, and a government-site on education in numbers. And what I found was quite different from the map.

First of all, you need to understand that in the Netherlands - as with most countries - there a several levels of tertiary education. For simplicities sake just refer to them as low, medium, high, and university (and there's of course also PhD's and stuff). I'm going to use the government site, as it had lower numbers than the news-site (numbers that prove my point less well). If you look solely at the higher education - which, as I said, is a subset of the Dutch tertiary education - you see that in 2010 the actual numbers were 17.4 + 9.4 = 26.8%. In 2019 those numbers have risen to 20.6 + 11.9 = 32.5%. As I said, the actual numbers are higher because we only look at the higher tertiary education (simplified: the bachelor- and master-levels). The levels are of course different, if you solely look at the master-levels (11.9% in 2019). But...

a. that's not what the map claimed to be about, and b. you cannot directly compare universities in one country to another. For example you would not have - to be kinda on topic - have a Trump university. In the Netherlands this would be considered a medium level business school (most likely not even a higher-level business school because of the way it was organized). As an analogy, compare the term 'professor'. In the Netherlands it's a title reserved for a very select group. In simplified (though slightly incorrect) terms he's the chair of a scientific department (although a departement at a Dutch university would be something different from this department). In some countries, however, anyone with tenure is referred to as a professor. And then there are even countries (and I think that might be true for the US as well) where anyone teaching at an academic institute is called a professor. Which - to me - makes no sense at all...but that's because of my Dutch background.

So yeah...anyway, I understand the confusion. Also, the map was based on the data from Barro and Lee. Who just happen to both be associated with Harvard University in the USA. So I understand why their data would be skewed towards the US's approach to education. I'm not claiming their data is wrong (though I trust the official Dutch numbers much more). I'm just saying it doesn't measure what the map claimed it does.

Finally - and most importantly - I do not want to be a moderator, and I think Snarky, Wham, Blondbeard and everyone else here who still knows me, knows I would do a terrible job and would never offer it it me.

Afaik the map is about universities/people who graduated from a university (or then went to to get more uni degrees). In most countries that is what is meant when one says "tertiary education", although there are other schools you can go to after secondary education.
In Greece having a uni degree is a status symbol and many just have it without using it for work. For example, the market for medical doctors is entirely saturated, likewise for lawyers, but both those degrees are seen as a symbol of status so they keep getting more and more graduates.
And until Britain left the Eu, the number of students there from Greece was also high (I graduated from an English university: the University of Essex). 

[Blondbraid]

I guess some people don't know the difference between a braid and a beard.  More likely, though, he's like my son, reading the first few letters and guessing the word... it gives some odd questions/sentences once in a while. 

Who's Blondbeard? 

You don't know him? - Great guy!

No really, my appologies (it's not even like you have the most difficult name here...I mean, how hard is it to write Braidedbeard, really?). I could blame dyslexia, the auto-correct, that at I was thinking of pirates lately, or the fact that I was tired. But in reality I was just typing lazily. Let's just pretend I edited the post, and call it fake news...

 

[Misj']

Afaik the map is about universities/people who graduated from a university (or then went to to get more uni degrees). In most countries that is what is meant when one says "tertiary education", although there are other schools you can go to after secondary education.

I'm not going to hijack this thread...but...as I said, the term 'university' is not universal and cannot be compared. That being said, the map states that the data source is the world bank. And Wikipedia states: 'The World Bank, for example, defines tertiary education as including universities as well as trade schools and colleges'. While that definition is strictly speaking incorrect, it mostly matches the one I used in my previous post for simplicities sakes.

[BarbWire]

With only eight days to go before Joe Biden is inaugurated, the impeachment of trump seemed to be a waste of time.
However, it would appear that  if this does take place, he will never be able to run for office again. Whew!

When questioned about the soon to be ex president, I loved Arnold Schwarzeneggar's view on the subject.
Quote:  'He will soon be irrelevant as an old tweet.' 

Impersonating Arnie, my son added 'And he won't be back.'  A bit of good news at last 

[Stupot]

Impersonating Arnie, my son added 'And he won't be back.'  A bit of good news at last 

Bravo. Your son is a man after my own heart.