![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great page, so I hope the creator doesn't take offense to the tags (wikify and confusing) being added, but the explanation of the calculation of closeness is definitely is beyond the comprehension of most people. The exact and mathematical explanation is definitely a good and necessary thing, but could someone maybe start off with a "dumbed down" explanation?-- Hraefen 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Mucho thanks for the explanation rewrite, DLJessup!
I don't understand, though, how Washington's 1789 and 1792 elections can have him winning all the electoral votes, and yet his margin of victory is 1.000 in the first instance and 0.833 in the second.
I noticed that because of the following passage in United States presidential election, 1936, which made me look back and find Roosevelt's 1936 victory in 3rd place from the "bottom" rather than 4th.
“ | Roosevelt's 60.8% of the popular vote is the second-largest percentage in U.S. history after Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and his 98.5% of the electoral vote is the fourth-largest in U.S. history after George Washington's two unanimous wins in 1789 and 1792 and James Monroe's unopposed race in 1820. | ” |
TransUtopian 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What does "1 Stat. 239" mean? I presume stat means statute. Google reveals it's aka the "Act of March 1, 1792".
I remember the " Favorite son" reason from the article on the 12th Amendment, which makes sense in that way, though it created a bit of math confusion in my head. Fascinating reason for the Vice Presidency. The 1800 election mentions some states casting blank ballots, but only in the contingent election due to the Representatives of several states being evenly split on their choice. Also interesting in the VP article, "While [the 12th Amendment solved the problem we've been discussing], it ultimately had the effect of lowering the prestige of the Vice Presidency, as the Vice President was no longer the second choice for President."
I'm developing a continuing interest in this. My other political interests stem from researching stuff after The West Wing, but it's usually short-lived. Any recommendations on laymen's guides (books or sites) to late 1700's/early 1800's Constitutional/election stuff besides WP & its refdesk? I next want to sit down with the US Electoral College article. TransUtopian 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand how the election was unanimous even though John Adams got some electoral votes, but I don't understand how the margin of victory was 0.833. Could someone show the math that was used to get this number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashertg ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
“ | In modern presidential elections, the margin of victory does not depend on the margin between the winner and his main rival. If the “winner” doesn't get a majority of the electoral vote, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives where his rival may very well be chosen. On the other hand, if a candidate does get a majority, he is guaranteed to have more votes than his rivals. | ” |
This is a bit problematic, especially considering that this election may include a female candidate, so I'm going to go ahead and make this gender-neutral. Tyharvey313 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This gender-neutral hysteria has to have an end: Yes, if WP policy prefers that "he" not be used, then by all means change it. Do not, however, make a big deal out of it. Read-up on how language and grammar works instead, and ignore the propaganda from the gender-feminist and politically correct camps. You are just being a "useful idiot". 94.220.242.124 ( talk) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
While the contents are not without interest and the topic perfectly valid, the article positively scream original research at the moment. I have added the corresponding tag. 94.220.242.124 ( talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming, as the text says that the table is ordered based on normalized percent in the electoral college why would there be two number 1? One could argue that since neither election yeilded a winner in the EC that neither belongs on the list at all. But if they are going to be there (which I prefer for completelness) either carry through with the ordering formula (percent of EC vote) or perhaps include them but rank them as N/A. (Neither candidate gained a victory in the electoral college).
To most people two #1s imply a tie, but the numbers don't show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am using the data from this table for some election research, and I believe that the column "Winner (c)" should really be "Winner" and that "Total number of electors" should be "Total number of electors (c)". Basically, c should represent the variable for the total number of electors. Could someone double-check me on this? I have not modified anything. blacksheep ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that the main table does not include the simple raw margin of the winner over the runner-up.
That is what most people seek when they consult a table like this.
"Raw margin" should be the title of a column immediately to the right of the "winner" and "runner-up" column, and should be nothing but the difference between those two numbers.
And, it should be possible to choose to rank the data by the raw margin where applicable (i.e., for cases that did not involve two candidates tied for first place).
It almost seems as though someone was hoping this article would be confusing. I certainly hope not. Daqu ( talk) 04:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding the popular vote to the column. It may be an interesting way to compare individual elections since EC does not always mirror this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing much, I just think the little math lesson in the "landslide" section is unnecessary. Just include the percentage. 023I17572llO173740 ( talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The AP and state of Georgia appear to have decided Biden has a total of 306 electoral votes as of today I believe. Is it appropriate to update the total or should we wait until this disputing business is over? PhoenixJCC ( talk) 01:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the following subsection from the article page - Arjayay ( talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Reagan's 1984 re-election victory is referred to as "one of the most lopsided victories in American history" as opposed to "one of the biggest landslide victories in American history?" For what it's worth it is referred to in the section of the article as a "landslide." Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 04:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
He's described as having won the least, 136, but he didn't run only in 1796 and 1800: he also ran in 1788 and 1792. He won 247 total electoral votes (34 in the first election [won VP], 77 in the second [also VP], 71 in his successful run, and 65 in his loss to Jefferson). ~ MD Otley ( talk) 14:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This is a great page, so I hope the creator doesn't take offense to the tags (wikify and confusing) being added, but the explanation of the calculation of closeness is definitely is beyond the comprehension of most people. The exact and mathematical explanation is definitely a good and necessary thing, but could someone maybe start off with a "dumbed down" explanation?-- Hraefen 17:22, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Mucho thanks for the explanation rewrite, DLJessup!
I don't understand, though, how Washington's 1789 and 1792 elections can have him winning all the electoral votes, and yet his margin of victory is 1.000 in the first instance and 0.833 in the second.
I noticed that because of the following passage in United States presidential election, 1936, which made me look back and find Roosevelt's 1936 victory in 3rd place from the "bottom" rather than 4th.
“ | Roosevelt's 60.8% of the popular vote is the second-largest percentage in U.S. history after Lyndon Johnson in 1964, and his 98.5% of the electoral vote is the fourth-largest in U.S. history after George Washington's two unanimous wins in 1789 and 1792 and James Monroe's unopposed race in 1820. | ” |
TransUtopian 12:38, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
What does "1 Stat. 239" mean? I presume stat means statute. Google reveals it's aka the "Act of March 1, 1792".
I remember the " Favorite son" reason from the article on the 12th Amendment, which makes sense in that way, though it created a bit of math confusion in my head. Fascinating reason for the Vice Presidency. The 1800 election mentions some states casting blank ballots, but only in the contingent election due to the Representatives of several states being evenly split on their choice. Also interesting in the VP article, "While [the 12th Amendment solved the problem we've been discussing], it ultimately had the effect of lowering the prestige of the Vice Presidency, as the Vice President was no longer the second choice for President."
I'm developing a continuing interest in this. My other political interests stem from researching stuff after The West Wing, but it's usually short-lived. Any recommendations on laymen's guides (books or sites) to late 1700's/early 1800's Constitutional/election stuff besides WP & its refdesk? I next want to sit down with the US Electoral College article. TransUtopian 14:13, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
I understand how the election was unanimous even though John Adams got some electoral votes, but I don't understand how the margin of victory was 0.833. Could someone show the math that was used to get this number? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashertg ( talk • contribs) 14:28, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
“ | In modern presidential elections, the margin of victory does not depend on the margin between the winner and his main rival. If the “winner” doesn't get a majority of the electoral vote, the election is thrown into the House of Representatives where his rival may very well be chosen. On the other hand, if a candidate does get a majority, he is guaranteed to have more votes than his rivals. | ” |
This is a bit problematic, especially considering that this election may include a female candidate, so I'm going to go ahead and make this gender-neutral. Tyharvey313 02:30, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
This gender-neutral hysteria has to have an end: Yes, if WP policy prefers that "he" not be used, then by all means change it. Do not, however, make a big deal out of it. Read-up on how language and grammar works instead, and ignore the propaganda from the gender-feminist and politically correct camps. You are just being a "useful idiot". 94.220.242.124 ( talk) 12:19, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
While the contents are not without interest and the topic perfectly valid, the article positively scream original research at the moment. I have added the corresponding tag. 94.220.242.124 ( talk) 12:22, 20 December 2009 (UTC)
Assuming, as the text says that the table is ordered based on normalized percent in the electoral college why would there be two number 1? One could argue that since neither election yeilded a winner in the EC that neither belongs on the list at all. But if they are going to be there (which I prefer for completelness) either carry through with the ordering formula (percent of EC vote) or perhaps include them but rank them as N/A. (Neither candidate gained a victory in the electoral college).
To most people two #1s imply a tie, but the numbers don't show that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.12 ( talk) 22:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)
I am using the data from this table for some election research, and I believe that the column "Winner (c)" should really be "Winner" and that "Total number of electors" should be "Total number of electors (c)". Basically, c should represent the variable for the total number of electors. Could someone double-check me on this? I have not modified anything. blacksheep ( talk) 19:09, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
It is ridiculous that the main table does not include the simple raw margin of the winner over the runner-up.
That is what most people seek when they consult a table like this.
"Raw margin" should be the title of a column immediately to the right of the "winner" and "runner-up" column, and should be nothing but the difference between those two numbers.
And, it should be possible to choose to rank the data by the raw margin where applicable (i.e., for cases that did not involve two candidates tied for first place).
It almost seems as though someone was hoping this article would be confusing. I certainly hope not. Daqu ( talk) 04:55, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
I suggest adding the popular vote to the column. It may be an interesting way to compare individual elections since EC does not always mirror this. -- A Certain White Cat chi? 01:55, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
Nothing much, I just think the little math lesson in the "landslide" section is unnecessary. Just include the percentage. 023I17572llO173740 ( talk) 23:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
The AP and state of Georgia appear to have decided Biden has a total of 306 electoral votes as of today I believe. Is it appropriate to update the total or should we wait until this disputing business is over? PhoenixJCC ( talk) 01:37, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
I have moved the following subsection from the article page - Arjayay ( talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
Is there any particular reason that Reagan's 1984 re-election victory is referred to as "one of the most lopsided victories in American history" as opposed to "one of the biggest landslide victories in American history?" For what it's worth it is referred to in the section of the article as a "landslide." Basil the Bat Lord ( talk) 04:55, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
He's described as having won the least, 136, but he didn't run only in 1796 and 1800: he also ran in 1788 and 1792. He won 247 total electoral votes (34 in the first election [won VP], 77 in the second [also VP], 71 in his successful run, and 65 in his loss to Jefferson). ~ MD Otley ( talk) 14:09, 2 May 2024 (UTC)