In most countries, a lopsided election represents a mandate that the winning party could then use to implement their agenda, but the U.S. political system seems to have been made to prevent such an occurrence.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
Sometimes in politics, you get a wallop in the electoral process.
Elections are about choices.
The people who cast the votes don't decide an election, the people who count the votes do.
It seems to be impossible to hold a credible election without reforming the electoral system.
Elections are held to delude the populace into believing that they are participating in government.
In some countries that are darlings of the West, like Egypt, everyone knows the result of national elections years in advance: The man in power always wins. In others, like Saudi Arabia, the very idea of an election is unthinkable.
What's the point of elections if everything is already decided?
Electoral contests have nothing but polls, which is why people have grown so obsessed with them; we're desperate for an objective rendering of what is happening and what may happen.
You know, there is a long tradition in the U.S. of, um, promoting elections up to the point that you get an outcome you don't like. Look at Latin America in the Cold War.
If you look back through history in the United States, there have been very few landslide elections. Half the country always voted for someone else.