Talk:Landslide victory

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Politics Start‑class Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

What`s wong with this article?

What about Republican Warren G. Harding, who was elected in a landslide in the US (1920). "Harding won in a massive landslide, pulling over 7 million more votes than Cox." See http://millercenter.org/president/biography/harding-campaigns-and-elections. According to another link, Warren G. Harding won 404 out of 531 electoral votes. Karin D. E. Everett (talk) 05:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Are the words in bold in there for a purpose? I don`t believe I have ever seen anything like this one before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.14.14.15 (talk) 20:19, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United Kingdom

In what respect is Tony Blair's 1997 landslide the largest in the 20th century?

The 1931 election was a big landslide in which Conservatives gained 470 seats alone (not counting other National Government parties) and won 55.0% of the popular vote alone to Labour's 46 seats and 29.4%.

In 1997, Labour won 43.2% and 418 seats to Conservatives' 30.7% and 165 seats.

Would the 1918 token election also qualify as a landslide?

49.200.119.124 (talk) 13:09, 27 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Canada 2015

Per the article, "The Liberal Party's increase of 148 seats from the previous election was the largest-ever numerical increase by a party in a Canadian election....Prior to the campaign, the Liberals had held only 36 seats—the fewest seats ever held at dissolution by any federal party that won the following election." If that doesn't count as a landslide, I don't know what does. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:27, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The LPC won with 8% more of the vote (39%) than the next party, and holds 14 seats above the 170 seats majority (54% of seats, 184/340). It's by no measure a landslide. There is no mention of a landslide either on the Wiki page of that election either. The 2011 election actually produced a stronger lead by the CPC (9%) and about the same seat %age (53.5%, 166/310). There's no reason why it should be included, it's just a regular election that produced a majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 12:03, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Germany

The two results from the 1950s were for West Germany. In an article of this kind I think the distinction important. 84.3.187.196 (talk) 12:18, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Trimming back

At some point, this article was allowed to balloon into a huge collection of original research. The list of landslide victories article was deleted here for a reason: it is a term with various possible definitions, cannot be defined for encyclopedic purposes, and leads to all the OR here (in the Australian section, for example, there were several results that I wouldn't call a landslide, but what criteria were we using? Someone had randomly decided for themselves). Frickeg (talk) 02:14, 4 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

US gubernatorial elections?

I'm not sure that the elections for US governors belong in this article, going by the introduction: The term is often incorrectly used to indicate a lopsided victory in which one side has a large majority, but it is not associated with a change in the political landscape. If we're using 'landslide victory' in that looser sense of 'a big win', then OK; but it seems to me it should be limited to elections of major significance and with considerable geographic scope, which basically means national results only. Robofish (talk) 16:19, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article continues to be 100% original research. I would support the removal of every single election listed here and trimming this back to be a simple prose explanation of a term with a number of definitions. Frickeg (talk) 22:09, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at this article again, I'd agree. But if we are to keep a list of 'landslide victories', there should be some sort of consensus on what a 'landslide' actually is.

At the moment, the inclusion criteria for the gubernatorial elections seems to be 60% or more of the vote, which seems way too low to me. An election where 2 in every 5 people vote for a different candidate isn't a 'landslide'. I'd say the threshold for inclusion here should be winning 67% of the votes at the very least, maybe higher. Yes, this is arguably original research - but if we're going to have the list, we might as well agree on what the inclusion criteria should be. Robofish (talk) 21:46, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support removing all of the elections because nearly all of them are not in any way a landslide victory. They do not represent any kind of change in the political landscape. Further, Wikipedia has rules that it is not a list of trivia. One or two good examples should be shown and that is it. If a reader doesn't comphrehend the topic with a couple examples, having a few hundred won't help. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 13:23, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sequential Elections

Assuming that the article is correct, a landslide is different than a lopsided victory because a landslide indicates a change in the political landscape. Therefore, sequential elections for the same person cannot be a landslide. The landscape shifted for the first election. The rest of the following elections show that the landscape is still shifted - not shifting or changing. Correct? So, in order to trim this ever-growing list, we can easily remove subsequential elections for the same person. For example, I removed Reagan's second election, even though I doubt his win over Carter had anything to do with a shifting political landscape. Carter won by beating Nixon (who wasn't even running) and then lost to Reagan. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 16:43, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Precise Definition

Is there any consensus on exactly how large a swing, or how large a majority, is needed before the term landslide can be used? Robin S. Taylor (talk) 23:22, 30 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. While the term initially referred to a landslide-like change in the political landscape, it now has no meaning whatsoever. I searched and I found examples of "landslide" being used as nothing more than a filler word that sounds good when spoken. Further, on Wikipedia's reference desk, apparently younger commentors stated that a "landslide victory" means a "majority." So, winning by 50.0000001% is a landslide. They didn't see a connection of any kind between a real-world landslide and a landslide victory. I believe this is a word-police issue now. It is obvious that the word had meaning, but that has been lost. So, attempting to reapply meaning is a losing battle. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 18:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just learned that there is a term for this: semantic bleaching. Landslide victory used to have a narrow, precise meaning. Over time, the meaning of the phrase has been "bleached" so it no longer has meaning. 135.84.167.41 (talk) 19:17, 6 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Splitting proposal

I propose that sections of the page to be split into a separate page called List of Landslide victory by nation. The content of the current page seems off-topic and these sections are large enough to make their own page (note: yes, i copy them from WP:SPLIT. But that doesn't matter).

125.167.115.222 (talk) 05:49, 9 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]