Liliputins-324

The landslide election victory can bury the democracy as whole while the razor-thin victory can make it bleed to death ... "
Gore Vidal

Liliputins. What, the heck, is this ?
http://www.stihi.ru/2012/08/18/5368



***

Landslide victory


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Landslide victory is an electoral victory in a political system, when one candidate or party receives an overwhelming majority of the votes or seats in the elected body, thus all but utterly eliminating the opponents. The winning party has reached more voters than usual, and a landslide victory is often seen in hindsight as a turning point in people's views on political matters, as for instance when Ronald Reagan won a landslide election in 1984 in the U.S., or when Tony Blair and his Labour Party won landslides in the UK general elections of 1997 and 2001.[1] In Denmark, the general election in 1973 was dubbed the landslide election (Danish: Jordskredsvalget) because several new parties enjoyed considerable popularity while the older parties suffered severe losses.
Part of the reason for a landslide victory is sometimes a bandwagon effect, as a significant number of people may decide to vote for the party which is in the lead in the pre-election opinion polls, regardless of its politics.
The term is borrowed from geology, where a landslide takes almost everything with it on its way.

See also
Wave election
Blowout (sports)

***


Landslide Definition in Politics


We all know that the term landslide election is used to describe an overwhelming, resounding or decisive political victory. But how much is a landslide election? Is there a certain margin of victory that qualifies as a landslide election? If so, what is it?

We'll take a look at what a constitutes a landslide election in both presidential and congressional races, but the term can also be applied to lopsided elections at both the state and local levels as well.

We'll also learn about the history of the term landslide election and how it's been used in American political history.

Landslide Election Definition

There is no legal or constitutional definition of what a landslide election is, or how wide an electoral victory margin must be in order for a candidate to have won in a landslide.

But many modern-day political commentators and media pundits use the term landslide election freely to describe campaigns in which the victor was a clear favorite during the campaign and goes on to win with relative ease.

How Much a Landslide Election Is

One generally agreed upon measure of a landslide election is when the winning candidate beats his opponent or opponents by at least 15 percentage points in a popular vote count.

Under that scenario a landslide would occur when the winning candidate in a two-way election receives 58 percent of the vote, leaving his opponent with 42 percent.

There are variations of the 15-point landslide definition.

The online political-news source Politico has defined a landslide election as being on in which the winning candidate beats his opponent by at least 10 percentage points, for example.

And the well known political blogger Nate Silver, of The New York Times, has defined a landslide district as being one in which a presidential vote margin deviated by at least 20 percentage points from the national result.

Electoral College Landslide Definition

Of course, the United States does not elect its presidents by popular vote. It instead uses the Electoral College system.

There are 538 electoral votes up for grabs in a presidential race, so how many would a candidate have to win to achieve a landslide?

Again, there is no legal or constitutional definition of a landslide in a presidential election.

But political journalists have offered their own suggested guidelines for determining a landslide victory over the years.

One generally agreed upon definition of an Electoral College landslide is a presidential election in which the winning candidate secures at least 375 or 70 percent of the electoral votes.



***

 
What constitutes a landslide victory?

People love to use strong sounding terms these days, and I think the term landslide is probably used to describe races that a generation ago would not have been called landslides.  Some people use a 20% margin of victory (which in a two-way race would be 60% to 40%) as the boundary between a landslide win and merely a "comfortable" win.  See the Center for Voting and Democracy's summary of 1998 election predictions at http://www.fairvote.org/reports/monopoly/predict/ .  Still, if a candidate gets close to four out of every ten voters (I know it's also two out of every five but people often think more in powers of ten) to vote for him or her, it doesn't seem to me like that candidate has been defeated in a landslide even if all the remaining voters voted for one other candidate.  Most people will consider a two to one victory in a two way or nearly two way (if there are some other candidates but they get a very small percentage of the vote) race as a landslide, and I feel I agree with that.  A third of the vote is a sizable portion of the vote, but two-thirds is a very large majority and most legal hurdles in America (like overriding vetoes and in my home state of Maine sending bond issues or constitutional amendments to the people) that require more than a simple majority of the vote require two-thirds of the vote, giving that fraction some significance and suggesting that the founding fathers thought that was a landslide victory.  A 65% to 35% result is close to two to one, and I think you could get away with calling that a landslide.  You might get a whining letter to the editor from the local grouch who supported the losing candidate (and who perhaps remembers a time when such a result would not have been considered a landslide), but I think the editor or whoever checks your work (if anyone) before it goes to the paper would have no problem with it and may even suggest you add it if you didn't use the word landslide.  Good luck in writing your article and in deciding whether or not to use the term landslide.

Sincerely,

***
razor–thin     adjective
Learner's definition of RAZOR–THIN
   
always used before a noun   chiefly US
 
   
very small or thin               

razor-thin models


He won by a razor-thin margin.

It was a razor-thin victory. [=a victory that was won by a very small margin or amount]


***

List of close election results

This is a list of close election results at national and state level. It lists results that have been decided by a margin of less than 1 vote in 1000 (a margin of victory of less than 0.1%).

The large number of close results in Canada's federal parliamentary elections is largely due to the way that Canadian ridings are structured and allocated. Canadian ridings are set by an independent commission based on the current formula of 308 seats, with some other variables in structuring what are formally known as the "electoral districts", making ridings often unusually balanced in political affiliation. This is one (but obviously not the only) factor that accounts for the unusual number of election results that have produced a difference of less than 0.1% between the winner and loser in those elections


***

Bush v. Gore: Democrats brought a knife to a gunfight

By Gloria Borger, CNN Chief Political Analyst


Jeb's role in 2000 Florida recount

Story highlights

Gloria Borger explores Bush v. Gore, the endless election that has much to say about U.S. politics then and now
Borger: Democrats brought a knife to a gunfight; they were outclassed by GOP strategy, but things might be different now


Editor's Note: Watch a CNN Special Report with Gloria Borger: "Bush v. Gore: The Endless Election," Monday at 9 p.m. ET


 (CNN)—It's been a trip in a time machine: Back 15 years to the confusion of Election 2000, and the resulting 36 days in Florida — a state whose governor, Jeb Bush, was the brother of the GOP candidate. Back to a tie presidential race that wound up decided by an unprecedented intervention by the U.S. Supreme Court. Back to a very different time -- as we learned in reporting "The Endless Election" -- that still remains an unmatched moment in modern political history.

You could not have written this script in Hollywood, as photographer David Hume Kennerly told us. And it would be close to impossible to duplicate. Because -- even given all the fight and the heart and the struggle that was evident on both sides --there were overriding shared sentiments: Win, of course. Fight hard. But don't destroy the country along the way.

Gloria Borger

Looking back on this epic battle, as we did, a few things are clear: Communication, just 15 years ago pre-smartphone, pre-Twitter seems quaint, even ancient. On election night, when Gore was about to concede, his own war room had no idea that he had already called George W. Bush and was on his way to the War Memorial in Nashville to make it official. The scramble to find him, and hold him back, looks more Marx Brothers than modern -- and only because campaign staffers could not communicate. Imagine that.

But that's really the least of it.

Election 2000 was, in many ways, a turning point in American political history. Al Gore had won the national popular vote by more than half a million. But he lost the two most important votes: the one in the Electoral College and the one at the Supreme Court.


Politics was transformed

Bush v. Gore: Where are they now?

James Baker served as Bush;s recount chief after serving in the Reagan and George H.W. Bush administrations. He also played a large role in fighting the legal claims made by Gore;s campaign over the controversy of the 2000 election.

Baker has been a family friend of the Bush family. However, in 2015 Jeb Bush said he was distancing himself from Baker.
Ted Olson represented Bush in the legal battle after the 2000 election.



Not only was it the closest election in modern times -- and perhaps the hardest fought -- but in its retelling it soon becomes clear that politics itself was transformed. Bush versus Gore went from being a close election decided by the voters to one that moved to the courts. The lawyers took over. The candidates seemed more sideshow than center stage -- with detail-driven Gore managing his own legal strategy and Bush home in Texas, leaving it all to top man Jim Baker. To this day, some of the young Democratic guns who fought the fight look back on it as uneven -- the GOP with a clear game plan and strategy, the Democrats with varying views of how to proceed and how hard to fight.

There was no precedent, no history as guide. Just two sides trying to see through the fog and discern a path to victory.

Florida, with its 25 electoral votes, was the key to victory for both sides. The voting process in the state was a mess -- with poorly designed ballots and resulting irregularities in counting. Election night itself was a network television nightmare -- with Gore and Bush alternately declared victors in the state. And once the lawyers took over, well, it dragged on for 36 days. Until the Supreme Court decided the election.


Bush vs Gore The Endless Election_00011904

Related Video: Bush v. Gore: The Endless Election 01:24

In listening to the Democrats retell it (and yes, they're still not over it), it's clear that, in retrospect, they now see it as a moment after which they learned of the need to fight. As Gore Florida Senior Adviser Nick Baldick tells us in the documentary, the Democrats "brought a knife to a gunfight." Al Gore was the ultimate establishment candidate. And he had, after all, conceded on election night -- only to take it back. Some on his team were worried about the "sore loser" label and how it might affect his future political plans. After eight years of Bill Clinton, somehow the Democrats seemed to have less fight in them than the GOP, which was itching to get back the White House.

The Gore pooh-bahs, who managed the details from D.C. at the Naval Observatory, were different from the Democratic warriors on the ground. Michael Whouley, Nick Baldick, Ron Klain, to name a few, were in the thick of everything in Florida. They wanted to win. Period. And to this day, they argue over vice presidential nominee Joe Lieberman's comments on "Meet the Press" in which he argued that late absentee military ballots should be given "the benefit of the doubt," a statement that caused Gore partisans to go into orbit because they believed Lieberman had handed Republicans a strategic — if not actual— path to victory.


When every vote counted: Closest U.S. elections

In 2000, Maria Cantwell challenged three-term incumbent Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and defeated him by 0.1% of all votes cast after a recount. Pictured, Gorton listens at a hearing in 2004.
In 2004, Jean Schmidt appeared to have won the Republican primary for the 14th District seat in the Ohio Senate by 62 votes. After a recount, Tom Niehaus was awarded the nomination with 22 more votes and went on to win the general election. Pictured, Schmidt speaks at a news conference, 2011.

While most eyes focused on ballot problems in Florida after the Bush-Gore race in 2000, New Mexico had the closest results. The state gave a razor-thin edge to Al Gore, just 366 votes. Pictured, Gore and his wife, Tipper, attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention.
Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election following a machine recount as well as a manual recount. Pictured, Gregoire appears with President Bill Clinton in 1998.

Democrat Jeanne Windham, pictured, defeated Constitution Party candidate Rick Jore by 2 votes in 2004 for a seat in the Montana House.

Al Franken took a U.S. Senate seat for Minnesota from incumbent Norm Coleman in 2008 after two recounts. Coleman led Franken by 206 votes on the first count, Franken led by 225 in the mandated recount, and after Coleman contested the recount, Franken led by 312. Pictured, Franken and his wife, Franny, wave after Coleman conceded the election in June 2009.

Incumbent Republican Mike Kelly, pictured, defeated Democratic challenger Karl Kassel by 1 vote for an Alaska House seat in 2008 following a recount.

In the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, the initial returns gave Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a victory by 8 votes. In the final tally Sen. Rick Santorum won by 34 votes, but results from several precincts were missing and the full actual results may never be known. Pictured, Santorum announces in April 2012 that he will be suspending his campaign.

Most notably in recent history, Gov. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to former Vice President Al Gore in 2000 but won the electoral vote for U.S. president. Bush won the presidency after a mandatory recount in Florida, and an additional hand recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was ruled unconstitutional. Bush led by 537 votes in official results. Pictured, Bush and his wife, Laura, celebrate after he clinched his party;s nomination in March 2000.

In 1839 Marcus Morton won the Massachusetts governorship over Edward Everett by a single vote. Morton had unsuccessfully run for governor 12 times between 1825 and 1840.

In the 1884 presidential election, Democrat Grover Cleveland won New York;s Electoral College votes with a slim plurality of 1,149 votes in the popular election, which put Cleveland over the edge to become the United States; 22nd president. Cleveland defeated Prohibitionist John Blain in a final electoral tally of 219 to 182. Pictured, Cleveland writes at his desk, circa 1900.

Long before serving as the 36th president, Lyndon Johnson defeated Gov. Coke Stevenson in the Texas Democratic primary runoff for Senate in 1948 by 87 votes. Many charged that Johnson stole the office through ballot fraud. Pictured, Johnson addresses the nation in 1963.

In the closest election in U.S. Senate history, in New Hampshire in 1974, Republican Louis Wyman beat Democrat John Durkin in several recounts. The election was contested for eight months. Ultimately, the Senate called for a revote, and Durkin won by 2 votes. Pictured, Durkin speaks at a Capitol press conference in 1975.

In 1984 Frank McCloskey beat Rick McIntyre by 4 votes to represent Indiana;s 8th Congressional District. Pictured, McIntyre speaks at a May 1985 press conference after McCloskey is voted into office.

After two recounts, Sam Gejdenson had 21 more votes than Edward Munster and took a seat in the Connecticut House in 1994. Pictured, Gejdenson speaks to the media in 1998.
In 2000, Maria Cantwell challenged three-term incumbent Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and defeated him by 0.1% of all votes cast after a recount. Pictured, Gorton listens at a hearing in 2004.

In 2004, Jean Schmidt appeared to have won the Republican primary for the 14th District seat in the Ohio Senate by 62 votes. After a recount, Tom Niehaus was awarded the nomination with 22 more votes and went on to win the general election. Pictured, Schmidt speaks at a news conference, 2011.

While most eyes focused on ballot problems in Florida after the Bush-Gore race in 2000, New Mexico had the closest results. The state gave a razor-thin edge to Al Gore, just 366 votes. Pictured, Gore and his wife, Tipper, attend the 2004 Democratic National Convention.

Democrat Christine Gregoire defeated Republican Dino Rossi in the 2004 Washington gubernatorial election following a machine recount as well as a manual recount. Pictured, Gregoire appears with President Bill Clinton in 1998.
Democrat Jeanne Windham, pictured, defeated Constitution Party candidate Rick Jore by 2 votes in 2004 for a seat in the Montana House.

Al Franken took a U.S. Senate seat for Minnesota from incumbent Norm Coleman in 2008 after two recounts. Coleman led Franken by 206 votes on the first count, Franken led by 225 in the mandated recount, and after Coleman contested the recount, Franken led by 312. Pictured, Franken and his wife, Franny, wave after Coleman conceded the election in June 2009.

Incumbent Republican Mike Kelly, pictured, defeated Democratic challenger Karl Kassel by 1 vote for an Alaska House seat in 2008 following a recount.

In the 2012 Iowa Republican caucuses, the initial returns gave Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney a victory by 8 votes. In the final tally Sen. Rick Santorum won by 34 votes, but results from several precincts were missing and the full actual results may never be known. Pictured, Santorum announces in April 2012 that he will be suspending his campaign.

Most notably in recent history, Gov. George W. Bush lost the popular vote to former Vice President Al Gore in 2000 but won the electoral vote for U.S. president. Bush won the presidency after a mandatory recount in Florida, and an additional hand recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court was ruled unconstitutional. Bush led by 537 votes in official results. Pictured, Bush and his wife, Laura, celebrate after he clinched his party;s nomination in March 2000.

In 1839 Marcus Morton won the Massachusetts governorship over Edward Everett by a single vote. Morton had unsuccessfully run for governor 12 times between 1825 and 1840.

In the 1884 presidential election, Democrat Grover Cleveland won New York;s Electoral College votes with a slim plurality of 1,149 votes in the popular election, which put Cleveland over the edge to become the United States; 22nd president. Cleveland defeated Prohibitionist John Blain in a final electoral tally of 219 to 182. Pictured, Cleveland writes at his desk, circa 1900.

Long before serving as the 36th president, Lyndon Johnson defeated Gov. Coke Stevenson in the Texas Democratic primary runoff for Senate in 1948 by 87 votes. Many charged that Johnson stole the office through ballot fraud. Pictured, Johnson addresses the nation in 1963.

In the closest election in U.S. Senate history, in New Hampshire in 1974, Republican Louis Wyman beat Democrat John Durkin in several recounts. The election was contested for eight months. Ultimately, the Senate called for a revote, and Durkin won by 2 votes. Pictured, Durkin speaks at a Capitol press conference in 1975.



In 1984 Frank McCloskey beat Rick McIntyre by 4 votes to represent Indiana;s 8th Congressional District. Pictured, McIntyre speaks at a May 1985 press conference after McCloskey is voted into office.


After two recounts, Sam Gejdenson had 21 more votes than Edward Munster and took a seat in the Connecticut House in 1994. Pictured, Gejdenson speaks to the media in 1998.

In 2000, Maria Cantwell challenged three-term incumbent Republican Sen. Slade Gorton of Washington and defeated him by 0.1% of all votes cast after a recount. Pictured, Gorton listens at a hearing in 2004.
The lesson Democrats haven't forgotten

Even 15 years later, Democrats bemoan their inability to match the clear and singular goals and message of James Baker and his GOP team: Bush won, and Team Bush was in Florida to preserve a victory, not count votes. It was a lesson in messaging the Democrats have not forgotten.

While Team Gore undoubtedly fought and fought hard, the candidate himself did not want to appear to be taking to the streets to win. Demonstrations were limited. Congressional visits to Florida were limited, too. Gore wanted to be a statesman in a dogfight. As Whouley told us, "When you're in a fight, the first person who stops fighting always loses." It still hurts.

From Day One, Team Bush led by Jim Baker had a plan and stuck to it. Get the case out of Florida (where the courts were dominated by Democrats) and into the Supreme Court. An odd federalization of a state issue, especially for a Republican, but Baker had no qualms about it when pressed by conservatives. "Do you want to be ideologically pure or do you want to win?" he told his fellow Republicans. The answer was self-evident.

Fifteen years later, there's no one saying the Republicans stole the election, because they didn't. What's stunning is that both sides seem to agree on what actually happened: As Baldick says, "I think more people went to the polls intending to vote for Al Gore for president than George Bush in Florida." And GOP operative Mac Stipanovich, who became Secretary of State Katherine Harris' brain, told us, "I believe the people who went to the polls that day and voted elected George Bush. I believe the people who went to the polls that day and intended to vote probably elected Al Gore."

So, it comes down to this: Maybe -- just maybe -- more people went to the polls intending to vote for Al Gore. But you need to count votes, not intentions. And that was the crux of the problem. In a series of post-election studies done by both the media and academics, the result is ambiguous: Bush likely would have won the statewide recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court, by a small margin. But Gore would have likely won a statewide recount of all disputed ballots — a process his team never requested.


Supreme Court was forever changed


As for the Supreme Court itself, it's hard to argue against the notion that the image of the court was forever changed. Gore campaign chairman Bill Daley says he expected a political decision, "I was cynical because they [the Republicans] have five appointees and I know that everybody thinks the Supreme Court is not political but they all get there by politics. They're appointed by some politician, i.e. the President of the United States."

GOP lead Supreme Court attorney Ted Olson obviously argues otherwise. "The process that was taking place in Florida was crazy, and had to be stopped, and ballots had to be counted in a sensible, consistent way," he told us. But here's a fact: in its decision, the court made it clear it was not to be construed as precedent-setting. So what does that mean for the future? "Well, what they're doing is they're stamping this ticket good for this day only," Gore Supreme Court lawyer David Boies explained. "And you don't typically stamp Supreme Court decisions good for this day only." The court knew it was deciding an election and to this day, it remains a matter of dispute among some remaining members of the court.

If this circumstance occurred today (and it could, given the divided country and the sorry state of some statewide election systems) it would be different. Social media would transform the entire ordeal. The candidates would be forced to behave differently, with rallies and demonstrations and maybe even political ads. The bitterness, which was evident then, would be more evident now. This is still a country divided, only more so. The fight would be different, no doubt about it. Not necessarily better, just different.

Former NBC news anchor Tom Brokaw rightly makes the case that, throughout the 36 days, democracy prevailed. "There were no tanks in the street. And there were no National Guard units that had to be called up, because people were not out in the streets, you know, ready to trash buses and businesses. That's a great tribute to this country."

He's right, and that's a plus. One can only hope that would be the case today. But it's hard to predict.