Talk:List of United States presidential elections by Electoral College margin

message: 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)
thread_title: Gendered Language

message: 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)
thread_title: Original research

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why are there two "number 1" entries?  

message: 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)
thread_title:  Question on Table of Election Results 

message: 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)
replies: text: Yes, that column should be added: Electoral votes for winner minus electoral votes for runner up. Geoffrey.landis (talk) 03:05, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thirded Orser67 (talk) 01:18, 8 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  It is ridiculous that the main table does not include the simple raw margin of the winner over the runner-up 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Popular vote 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Nixon vote Fraction 

message: 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)
thread_title:  When would it be appropriate to update Bidens total to the projected amount of votes 

message: I have moved the following subsection from the article page - Arjayay (talk) 13:24, 20 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question moved from article page 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Lopsided vs. "Landslide"

message: 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)
thread_title:  John Adams (pere) lifetime total