What was the closest election?

[Kaine for Senate '18]

I'm going to say 2000, but 1876 and 1960 are good contenders as well.

[Erc]

1876 wasn't close, it was stolen.

There's a difference.

So, 2000, with 1916 in a close second.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

1876 wasn't close, it was stolen.

There's a difference.

So, 2000, with 1916 in a close second.

And 2000 wasn't?

[jimrtex]

1800 for electoral vote, 1880 for popular vote.

[Dr. Cynic]

As far as the math goes, the closest election in popular vote was James A. Garfield over Winfield Scott Hancock.

[Mr. Morden]

What if you measure "closeness" by the victory margin in the deciding state (FL in 2000), either in %age or absolute number?  Have there been any other elections as close as 2000 by that measure?

[Bacon King]

1876, in which a single vote on a Federal panel would have changed the election's outcome.

[Хahar 🤔]

1876, in which a single vote on a Federal panel would have changed the election's outcome.

Of course.

[Smid]

1876 wasn't close, it was stolen.

There's a difference.

So, 2000, with 1916 in a close second.

And 2000 wasn't?

2000 wasn't stolen - Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If he won Tennessee, he would have won the election.

Furthermore, Dr John Lott in his book Freedomnomics, demonstrates that the early call for Florida by the news networks, despite the fact that the more conservative western portion of the state was in a different time zone and still voting, reduced turnout in those precincts and could have cost Bush as many as 7,500 votes (pp180-182).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, the 2000 election was almost stolen, but it was almost stolen by the Democrats, not the Republicans.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Oh boy. Not this again.

EVERYONE HIDE!!!!!!11

[Kaine for Senate '18]

1876 wasn't close, it was stolen.

There's a difference.

So, 2000, with 1916 in a close second.

And 2000 wasn't?

2000 wasn't stolen - Gore lost his home state of Tennessee. If he won Tennessee, he would have won the election.

Furthermore, Dr John Lott in his book Freedomnomics, demonstrates that the early call for Florida by the news networks, despite the fact that the more conservative western portion of the state was in a different time zone and still voting, reduced turnout in those precincts and could have cost Bush as many as 7,500 votes (pp180-182).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

In other words, the 2000 election was almost stolen, but it was almost stolen by the Democrats, not the Republicans.

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court voted on party lines to give Bush the election.  They should have had a statewide recount.  Notice that the 5 conservatives voted to deny the rightful winner of the election his office.  It was stolen, and you Republicans know it.

[DWPerry]

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court voted on party lines to give Bush the election.  They should have had a statewide recount.  Notice that the 5 conservatives voted to deny the rightful winner of the election his office.  It was stolen, and you Republicans know it.

The lawsuit before the Supreme Court wasn't about a Statewide recount. Gore only wanted certain counties to be recounted; counties that would have potentially benefited him.

However, I do agree that a statewide recount should have taken place.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The lawsuit before the Supreme Court wasn't about a Statewide recount. Gore only wanted certain counties to be recounted; counties that would have potentially benefited him.

I know, that was wrong, also.  The Court should have called for a statewide recount.

[Smid]

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court voted on party lines to give Bush the election.  They should have had a statewide recount.  Notice that the 5 conservatives voted to deny the rightful winner of the election his office.  It was stolen, and you Republicans know it.

It wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court if the media hadn't inaccurately called the election for Gore, discouraging Republicans from voting in the Panhandle - that's the point Lott was making. If Republican voters had not been discouraged from voting by an inaccurate call by the media, it wouldn't have been as close and it wouldn't have ended up in the Supreme Court.

If Gore hadn't taken his home state for granted, he still would have won the election - even losing Florida. Claiming that the election was stolen only stopped the Democrats from making changes to the policy platform to make themselves more electable and instead made them sound whiney, helping to cost them the 2004 election.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

Sure, if you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court voted on party lines to give Bush the election.  They should have had a statewide recount.  Notice that the 5 conservatives voted to deny the rightful winner of the election his office.  It was stolen, and you Republicans know it.

It wouldn't have gone to the Supreme Court if the media hadn't inaccurately called the election for Gore, discouraging Republicans from voting in the Panhandle - that's the point Lott was making. If Republican voters had not been discouraged from voting by an inaccurate call by the media, it wouldn't have been as close and it wouldn't have ended up in the Supreme Court.

If Gore hadn't taken his home state for granted, he still would have won the election - even losing Florida. Claiming that the election was stolen only stopped the Democrats from making changes to the policy platform to make themselves more electable and instead made them sound whiney, helping to cost them the 2004 election.

I dislike the '04 platform, but the election was stolen.  Deep down in your heart, you know it was.  Bush knows it.  O'Connor and Kennedy know it.  Rehnquist died knowing it.  Everyone knows it.

[DWPerry]

The lawsuit before the Supreme Court wasn't about a Statewide recount. Gore only wanted certain counties to be recounted; counties that would have potentially benefited him.

I know, that was wrong, also.  The Court should have called for a statewide recount.

The court can only rule on the lawsuit brought before them. And the case was actually about whether the vote could be certified (within the time specified in Florida State Law), NOT whether a recount should or should not happen.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore for info on the case

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The lawsuit before the Supreme Court wasn't about a Statewide recount. Gore only wanted certain counties to be recounted; counties that would have potentially benefited him.

I know, that was wrong, also.  The Court should have called for a statewide recount.

The court can only rule on the lawsuit brought before them.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_v._Gore for info on the case

I can't read anything on 2000.  It either makes me scream or cry.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The moment Gore only asked for those three Democratic counties - he lost the moral war.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

The moment Gore only asked for those three Democratic counties - he lost the moral war.

Sadly, that's true.

[pragmatic liberal]

To answer the question of the thread, it depends by which metric.

If it's the national popular vote, then 1880 was the closest election, both in terms of the percentage of the vote that separated the two candidates (~0.09%) and the raw vote (roughly 10,000 votes).

If the metric is the electoral college vote then the answer is 1876, which was decided by 1 electoral vote.

If the metric is the number of popular votes that could have swung the election, it's 2000, because a swing of only about 250 votes in Florida would have made Al Gore the president.

[Bacon King]

The moment Gore only asked for those three Democratic counties - he lost the moral war.

Florida law only allowed the automatic recounting of three counties, from what I have read.