US Presidential Election: Talk about “Landslides” does not help anyone
The US Presidential Election victory is being characterised as a “landslide” victory by Barack Obama over John McCain. The margin of victory in the popular vote was
This landslide was won by 52.3% to 46.4% in votes (compared to 349 vs 162 for delegates), as reported by the BBC at 2pm on Wednesday 5th:
However, at 1100 GMT, Mr Obama’s share of the popular vote stood at 52.3%, compared with Mr McCain’s 46.4%.
However you slice it – that is not a landslide. It is a difference of less than ten million votes from 130 millions cast – under a thirteenth. Last time the percentages were 50.7% (Bush) to 48.3% (Kerry), so the swing is around 4-5%.
UK Landslides
Similarly in 1997 (”Labour Landslide”) in the UK, Labour won by 44.33% to the Conservatives 31.45% (seats in Parliament: 418 to 165).
In 1983 (”Conservative Landslide”) in the UK, the Conservatives won by 42.4% to Labour’s 27.6% (seats in Parliament: 397 to 209).
Although the difference in votes is far greater, the commentary from the winners focused on the number of MPs rather than the share of the vote (or the share of the Electorate – see the graph of % of the total Electorate voting for the winner below), I’m still not sure that the term “landslide” should apply.
Is that an argument for Proportional Representation?
Personally I think it’s an argument for getting people to understand electoral maths better, and for a cull of headbanging post-Election Commentary which distracts from the reality of voting numbers. It also perhaps underlines the case for referenda on controversial policies rather than relying on the “bundles of policies” (manifestos) marginally supported at national elections as a justification for implementing everything therein.
It is also an argument for keeping reminding Governing Parties that they usually only represent a small majority of those who voted.
Here is the graph I mentioned above:
Although I take great delight in (necessarily in my own view) bashing New Labour from time to time, the other story of this graph is about disengagement over the very long term as measured in the falling turnout figure.
[tags]election landslides, New Labour, president obama, turnover, us presidential election[/tags]
Categories: All WW, Announcements, Comment, News - Current Affairs, Number Crunching, Politics
Part of Obama’s success was in engaging a new swathe of voters: younger and ethnic minority, and the higher turnout reflected this. US turnout has been steadily dropping from over 60% to 50% or less until this week: turnout this week was 64%, and you have to go back 100 years to beat that.
Voter registration was much higher this year: 40m higher than 2004. Registration is normally 70% or so of those eligible to vote, but this years figures are around 80%
However, even if you take a high estimate of registration into account, then Obama won with 52% of 64% of 85% of those eligible to vote, which is 28%. Is this the most resounding mandate that the ‘Greatest democracy in the world’ can provide?
So I agree, no landslide!
David Keen´s last blog post..It’s my trumpet and I’ll blow if I want to…
However, by the standard of US presidential elections, a 5.3% lead *is* a landslide victory.
David – your numbers paint a false picture, as those who do not vote implicitly accept the choices of those who do. Those numbers are useless except in showing the level of politial disengagement.
ThunderDragon´s last blog post..Lords 4 Liberty; MPs 4 Telescreens
ThunderDragon: I don’t think the numbers paint a false picture, it’s just how you interpret them! People not voting is democracy in action. I figured they were relevant since Matt posted the chart of UK electoral shares for our winners.
The question is: is the high level of disengagement in both UK and US (and probably most other) democracies a problem? Does it undermine the legitimacy of the results? If we value public opinion so much, then what about the opinion of the growing numbers who don’t know or don’t care? If the US is the greatest democracy in the world, and can elect a leader that only 28% of its adult citizens actively vote for, then what does that say about the efforts to ‘export’ that model of democracy to other countries?
David Keen´s last blog post..It’s my trumpet and I’ll blow if I want to…
>However, by the standard of US presidential elections, a 5.3% lead *is* a landslide victory.
Disagree. In the Elections since 1900 only 8 out of 27 show a margin smaller than 5.3%. Even since the war it only goes up to 6 out of 15. It *is* a small margin.
These are the numbers (date, winner, winner %, lead):
1900 William McKinley 51.60% 6.10%
1904 Theodore Roosevelt 56.40% 18.80%
1908 William H. Taft 51.60% 8.60%
1912 Woodrow Wilson 41.80% 14.40%
1916 Woodrow Wilson 49.20% 3.10%
1920 Warren G. Harding 60.30% 26.20%
1924 Calvin Coolidge 54.00% 25.20%
1928 Herbert Hoover 58.20% 17.40%
1932 Franklin D. Roosevelt 57.40% 17.70%
1936 Franklin D. Roosevelt 60.80% 24.30%
1940 Franklin D. Roosevelt 54.70% 9.90%
1944 Franklin D. Roosevelt 53.40% 7.50%
1948 Harry S. Truman 49.60% 4.50%
1952 Dwight D. Eisenhower 55.20% 10.90%
1956 Dwight D. Eisenhower 57.40% 15.40%
1960 John F. Kennedy 49.70% 0.20%
1964 Lyndon B. Johnson 61.10% 22.60%
1968 Richard Nixon 43.40% 0.70%
1972 Richard Nixon 60.70% 23.20%
1976 Jimmy Carter 50.10% 2.10%
1980 Ronald Reagan 50.70% 9.70%
1984 Ronald Reagan 58.80% 18.20%
1988 George H.W. Bush 53.40% 7.80%
1992 Bill Clinton 43.00% 5.60%
1996 Bill Clinton 49.20% 8.50%
2000 George W. Bush 47.90% -0.50%
2004 George W. Bush 50.70% 2.40%
Matt
The winner-takes-all effect of the presidency means that you can see it either as a source of division as, even in a relative landslide, the narrowly losing party has its face rubbed in the dirt for four years or, because the president has to govern for the whole country, they’re forced to compromise.
If there were third party candidates of serious size that lasted from one election to the next, gaining a significant share of the vote, it’d be very different as probably noone would gain a majority.
xD.
Dave Cole´s last blog post..The magic number sixty
>The winner-takes-all effect of the presidency means that you can see it either as a source of division as, even in a relative landslide, the narrowly losing party has its face rubbed in the dirt for four years or, because the president has to govern for the whole country, they’re forced to compromise.
The President outside the party mud-wrestling has an effect there as well, no? So there’s a mechanism to go “united front” when necessary.
The equivalent over here would be what – the “usual channels” and cross-party friendships.?
Matt
Matt Wardman´s last blog post..Hazel Blears’ talk to the Hansard Society about Political Engagement: Here is the text
[...] is advice to be had, as well. Matt Wardman, over at the “Wardman Wire†cautions us that “landslide†talk is helping no one. (Be sure to follow the comment thread for [...]