A landslide electoral victory in
representative democracy is typically limited to the criterion of the extent of
the vote-spread between candidates for a given office. In regard to the U.S.
presidency, the Electoral College presents an alternative criterion, especially
as a significant difference in votes in the College may not be reflected in the
popular vote. Although that vote is by member state, the totals from all of the
states are typically used to assess whether a landslide has occurred and thus
whether the winning candidate has a political mandate to implement campaign
promises. Whether a landslide or not, winning an election legitimates a candidate
implementing the platform on which a candidate has campaigned. So whether a
candidate for U.S. president has a landslide has typically been over-emphasized
by American journalists, as if not having a large spread in the popular vote—even
if such a spread exists in the Electoral College vote (which is the vote that
really matters in the election of a U.S. president)—means that the winner has
no prerogative to enact one’s agenda. I contend that even under the assumption
that an electoral landslide is important, there are alternative ways of
assessing whether a landslide has occurred.
The full essay is at "Electing a U.S. President."
