Talk:1800 United States presidential election

Wrong Data

The table on the top right is incorrect and clashes with the rest of the article. Please fix this someone! 50.54.137.6 (talk) 23:50, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

I think this complaint is reference to

"70 electoral votes needed to win"

Adams got 73 but this is not majority or Representatives never would've voted.

this is due to block voting of president and V.P. combined, with total of about 200 votes cast,

so majority would've been about 101. 2604:3D09:8880:11E0:2D65:FA33:D1AC:CDDD (talk) 23:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Table format

the new table format makes the article too wide. it makes me have to scroll to the right to see the rest. Kingturtle 05:25 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I just cut it to width=70%, did that help? -- Zoe

yes, it fits now. i need to set aside some time and learn how to edit tables and images. Kingturtle 05:28 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Most of my learning has been trial and error. Tables are a major pain. -- Zoe

Delaware a draw?

How could Delaware's vote in the contingent election in the House be a draw if the state only has one Representative? I thought that each state in the House voting got one vote, determined by a majority vote of its House delegation. Since Delaware's House representation was one guy .... am I missing something here? --Jfruh 14:55, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

The representative from Delaware, James Asheton Bayard, cast a blank ballot. The vote being 0 - 0, it was a draw.

— DLJessup 16:17, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm ... wouldn't "abstained" be a better description? --Jfruh 03:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

There are three states for a state's vote: a vote for Jefferson, a vote for Burr, or a vote for neither. We should be using the same term for a vote for neither, whether the individual representatives vote 0 - 0 or 10 - 10. — DLJessup 16:37, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Hi there -- I know it's been months since we've had this discussion, but I've been thinking about it and calling an abstention a 0-0 tie still seems overschematic and counterintuitive to me. I suppose there are three states for a state's vote as you discussed in terms of the final result, but there is more than one set of circumstances that could result in a vote for neither candidate: either the delegation is deadlocked, or the delegation decides not to cast a vote at all. I think that in terms of the political machinations of real life (which is of course what we're talking about here), people would have thought about a state not casting a vote because its delegation was evenly split, and a single delegate refusing to cast a vote, very differently; the political fallout for those politicians would have been very different as well. And I just don't think most people think of a single person refusing to make a choice as a "0-0 draw."

What do you think of the following as a revised version of the table in question? It maintains the three-state model for each delegation's vote, but also makes it clearer what happened, and gets rid of the "0-0 draw" verbiage.

	1st – 35th ballots	36th ballot
Georgia	Jefferson	Jefferson
Kentucky	Jefferson	Jefferson
New Jersey	Jefferson	Jefferson
New York	Jefferson	Jefferson
North Carolina	Jefferson	Jefferson
Pennsylvania	Jefferson	Jefferson
Tennessee	Jefferson	Jefferson
Virginia	Jefferson	Jefferson
Maryland	No vote cast (a)	Jefferson
Vermont	No vote cast (a)	Jefferson
Delaware	Burr	No vote cast (b)
South Carolina	Burr	No vote cast (a)
Connecticut	Burr	Burr
Massachusetts	Burr	Burr
New Hampshire	Burr	Burr
Rhode Island	Burr	Burr

• ^(a) These state House delegations were evenly split on the ballots indicated, and thus did not cast a vote.
• ^(b) On the 36th ballot, Delaware's single representative cast a blank ballot paper.

--Jfruh 14:36, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

As you can see, I've added in the results for each state that I got from the Annals of Congress. I've also replaced the word "draw" with "no result". I hope that the results address your concerns.

— DLJessup (talk) 01:46, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

This looks perfect! Thanks for doing this research, and for all the good work you do on Presidential election pages. --Jfruh 14:47, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Help!

Ok, really, I need help. I can't find it anywhere else. Would anyone happen to know how many times the house of reps had to revote for the 1800 election?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.114.144.104 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 13 March 2006 (UTC).

Not to be rude, but have you actually considered, say, reading the article? The answer is already there.

— DLJessup (talk) 05:20, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

i think they had to vote 37 times

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.107.124.115 (talk • contribs) . 20:29, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

No. 36 times. — DLJessup (talk) 14:17, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The Revolution of 1800 in Congress

Some time ago I did a study of the U.S. House races in the 1800-1801 cycle. I used the information in Michael J. Dubin's United States Congressional Elections 1788-1997 for this study, with additional information from online historic newspaper indices and some of my own research in the state archives in North Carolina. My entire analysis is found here: http://www.ourcampaigns.com/UserBlogPostDetail.html?UserBlogID=24&UserBlogPostID=163

What I found interesting is that control of the House was very much in question until it became clear that Adams had lost the presidency. The public reacted against the Federalist attempt to elect Aaron Burr in the contingent election, and in elections after the the U.S. House balloting started, the Federalists consistently lost close races and control of the House.

Unlike today, congressional elections were held throughout a 15-month season beginning in New York State on 4/29/1800 and ending in Kentucky on 8/3/1801.

For some reason, the many histories of the election of 1800 all assume that congressional and state elections were held on the same date as the presidential contest - which was not the case. Chronicler3 22:11, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to figure out how to incorporate Chronicler3's observations about the House races into this article. In the end, I ended up not being able to do it, aside from a mention of a possible backlash to the switch to legislative choice in the Massachusetts House races. (I did, however, incorporate the raw data about the election from Chronicler3's blog into United States House election, 1800.)

— DLJessup (talk) 22:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the section below from the article. Although I don't necessarily disagree with the statements, no sources are provided. As a statement of opinion on the talk page, it's fine. WCCasey (talk) 19:09, 19 February 2013 (UTC)

==Revolution of 1800==

Auguably, the most significant achievement of the election (and, especially for those living at the time, the most surprising achievement of the election) was that the transfer of power from the Federalists to the Democratic-Republicans was successfully consummated in a peaceful manner. It was singled out as a break from European precedent, in which power transfers were often violent and bloody. Another departure from standard politics up to the election was the greater appearance of popular democracy. The vote was ultimately decided upon by the House of Representatives, where members are directly chosen by the people.

Hmm, if "greater appearance of popular democracy" can be gained from this series of events, that suggests a pretty diabolic starting point when the events (as I understand them) can be summarized as "botched attempt by winning party to engineer around weird anomaly in voting process leads to tie in the presidential race, which the opposing party takes advantage of by deliberately engineering many further ties in Congress to stall the process and bypass the obvious desires of the people that had voted for Jefferson as the next President". --86.178.146.194 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Who ran for president and who were their running mates?

This article is rather confusing about who was actually running for president and who their running mate was. At the top it says Jefferson defeated Adams but then further down it says Jefferson and Burr tied in electoral votes. After reading further down I think I understand what was going on but its still not adequately explained how Burr, who was Jefferson's running mate (I think?), ended up tying Jefferson or even who Adam's running mate was. Can someone please clear this up. Dr. Morbius 22:42, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Simply put, there were no running mates back then, only candidates for the presidency. Adams got less votes than both Jefferson and Burr, who tied for first place. --KarlFrei 13:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

That's what I thought. Why does this article list running mates, then? What does "running mate" even mean in this context? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.164.46.73 (talk) 23:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

True. Also, it doesn't seem to make sense to have only Jefferson and Adam's pictures on the right. It makes it look like they were the only, or at least "main", candidates, when in fact they were all equally candidates from what KarlFrei is saying. Rodrigo de Salvo Braz (talk) 21:30, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Burr and Jefferson had a deal whereby he would win New York for Jefferson in exchange for Jefferson persuading his electors in other states to also use their second vote for Burr (apart from one) so that he would get the second most number of elector votes and become Vice President. While the execution was botched (twice in fact), that is in practice exactly the same as how it works with modern elections, so calling him a running mate seems perfectly justified - it just was organized by the parties via the electors they put forward at this point, rather than built into the Constitution as it would be a few years later. --86.178.146.194 (talk) 20:57, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

I agree with 86.178.146.194 Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

opinion statement

"Jefferson's victory ended America's most acrimonious presidential campaign to date." some would argue that this is true, some would argue that it isn't. :: Cannibalicious! 22:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Aaron Burr

Burr got 73 votes in the Electoral College. Though it was a fluke (which would cause the passage of the 12th amendment in 1804)? Burr did infact get 73 electoral votes for President. His image should be at the top of the article, between Jefferson & Adams. GoodDay (talk) 23:31, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Still, he wasn't considered to be a presidential candidate. It was widely assumed that the electors who cast votes for Jefferson would also vote for Burr, then drop one for Burr so that Jefferson could end up president and Burr vice president. Due to a fluke in the voting, however, they ended up equal and 36 ballots followed. Writergeek7 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Writergeek7 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One House Vote that should not have been counted

• William C.C. Claiborne vote should not have been counted -born 1775 he was elected before the legal house Age of 25! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.53.145.60 (talk) 16:44, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Source for popular vote

Does anyone here know the sources for the popular vote numbers? Samwisep86 (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Contingent election section

The section on the contingent election contains the following wording: "...many Federalists were unwilling to vote for Jefferson, their partisan nemesis (with one important exception, Alexander Hamilton)." This implies that Hamilton was a member of the House and had a vote in the matter. The wording needs to be changed in order to convey the correct sense that Hamilton was influential in ultimately determing the outcome, but did not himself have a vote. I am such a horrible writer that I hate to attempt it--any volunteers? 71.31.222.119 (talk) 04:13, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

good point. let's try "unwilling to support Jefferson" Rjensen (talk) 04:15, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I made the edit thank you. 75.88.82.247 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Political parties

From the lede: "the drafters of the Constitution had not anticipated the rise of organized political parties" ... really? Didn't Washington warn against them? Woodshed (talk) 23:03, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

yes really. Washington warned against them in 1796, afyet both parties were going strong. see Richard Hofstadter, "A Constitution against Parties" in his The Idea of a Party System: The Rise of Legitimate Opposition in the United States, 1780-1840 (1970) ch 2 Rjensen (talk) 23:20, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

"Organized" perhaps not, but it was Madison Federalist #10 who stated "“Liberty is to Faction What Air is to Fire”. So it's kind of a myth. Montanabw^(talk) 04:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Cecilia Kenyon (WMQ 1955 p 40) says about 1788 debates: "the contemporary opponents of the Constitution [ie Anti-Federalists] feared parties or factions in the Madisonian sense just as much as, and that they feared parties in the modern sense even more than, did Madison himself. They feared and distrusted concerted group action for the purpose of 'centering votes' in order to obtain a plurality, because they believed this would distort the automatic or natural expression of the people's will." Rjensen (talk) 04:52, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Fear yes, but Washington was not an Anti-Federalist. My main point is that Washington knew that factions existed, and Madison was the "father of the Constitution," so a statement like "drafters had not anticipated..." is perhaps a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you agree? Montanabw^(talk) 07:08, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

local informal factions they knew about in 1787--but organized parties they feared & denounced (says Kenyon) & thought they arranged the Constitution without them (The Electoral College was their solution--because it was a one-shot deal & was outside Congress). In 1787 no one predicted organized parties would appear in the new govt--but they DID appear about 1792-93 in the First Party System. When Washington complained (in 1796) the two parties were already going strong. He did not mention them in 1787-88. Rjensen (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110202214223/http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq to http://elections.lib.tufts.edu/aas_portal/index.xq

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

Regarding election of 1800

It is a fact that the authors are speculating on the outcome of the election of 1800. My words accurately reflect the issue without deleting their points. Feel free to email Dr. Wills, as I have, he will admit that he's speculating and has no way of knowing how the electoral votes would be reapportioned or how the votes would fall in states such as PA, NC, and MD where both Jefferson and Adams won votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.142.66 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Above moved here from my talk page. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 20:52, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

We stick with what the reliable sources say. With all due respect, your alleged email from Wills is not verifiable. Unlike today, there is no fixed maximum on the total number of members in the House of Representatives -- a rep was granted for every 30,000 inhabitants. Wills in a footnote on page 234 gives a detailed explanation and cites other historians reaching similar conclusions. You have an arguable point only when you bring forth reliable sources that reach a different conclusion. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

3/5ths compromise and the Election of 1800

Since the election of Trump this issue has re-emerged and a relatively forgotten book has finally made it to this wikipedia page. Unfortunately, the issue is still widely misunderstood. The author, Gary Wills, does in fact claim that without the 3/5ths compromise Adams would have won and Jefferson would have lost. But he does this by simply removing the 12 electoral votes from Jefferson that came from 3/5ths compromise (read the book, listen to his presentation).

HE DOES NOT recalculate how the electoral votes would be reapportioned if only white persons were counted (Read the book, listen to his speeches). Note, the south would NOT lose all 14 votes from slaves but that would be divided proportionally among all states based on white population. Dr. Wills will admit as much if you email him. In other words, the author is simply speculating as to the outcome of the election. Further complicating the math, Jefferson won New York (which would certainly get more) and Adams got votes in slave state Maryland and North Carolina.

My suggested edits (which fairly included a relatively minor and unsupported theory from a respected academic) but use the words MAY HAVE rather than WOULD HAVE (we don't know, no one does. You don't have a time machine): The result of this election was affected by the three-fifths clause of the United States Constitution, by which slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of Congressional apportionment. Some modern historians speculate that had slaves not been counted at all, Adams may have won the electoral college while losing the popular vote to Jefferson.[4] Adams had never owned a slave and was opposed to slavery, while Jefferson was an avowed slave owner. Jefferson was subsequently criticized as having won "the temple of Liberty on the shoulders of slaves".[5]

In closing, this Wikipedia article SHOULD NOT be about speculative history, but actual history. My edits should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.142.66 (talk) 20:56, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You apparently haven't read Wills book carefully (if at all). If you had, you would have found that he references actual calculations made by two other historians, William W. Freehling (The Road to Disunion vol 1) and Leonard L. Richards (The Slave Power). Check out the footnote in Wills' book on page 234 that provides the details. Your own opinion notwithstanding, can you cite any historian who disagrees with Wills, Freehling, or Richards? If you can't, then you have no case. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 21:37, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

You are correct, I stand corrected. Thanks. I also did the calculations based on the Census of 1790 using the Jefferson Method of Apportionment and the 33,000 people rule based on the 1792 apportionment act. It would be 57 to 63 in favor of Adams, (assuming no other rules changed as a result of no 3/5ths compromise). Jefferson and southern candidates would continue to win larger support in subsequent elections. This is the only one that stands out for awhile. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.142.66

You asked for a source regarding the popular vote. Try "America Afire: Jefferson, Adams, and the First Contested Election" by Bernard A. Weisberger pp. 228-230. He states that only Virginia, Rhode Island, North Carolina, Maryland, Kentucky, and Tennessee "allowed direct voter choice of electors." Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 23:00, 14 December 2016 (UTC) (talk) 22:34, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. But don't you think his statement is pure speculation? I put it there as a joke just to see if you'd keep it (and you did). Given the outcomes of the next few elections (with a growing trend toward direct election of electors) it is speculation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.78.142.66 (talk) 23:07, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

PS You added info regarding the popular vote to give the impression that TJ had some overwhelming popular support. In fact, the popular vote stats represent only 6 states as shown elsewhere in the article -- most states slected electors w/o a popular vote. Tom (North Shoreman) (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Slavery in the lead

DMorpheus2, in your recent reversion of my edit, you claimed that the fact that the content was sourced was "absolutely germane to the issue." Well of course it is! I didn't deny that. Do not twist my words in an attempt to accuse me of ignoring the validity of sourced material. What I actually said was that "We can't guarantee that something belongs just because it's sourced." Read that again, and then again once more to make sure you actually understand it. It means that we cannot put whatever we want into an article, stick a citation next to it, and say that it belongs.

In this case, the entire paragraph of the lead section of the article, 8 lines in total, is devoted to slavery, a subject which played no role as a campaign issue but which, according to these few historians, allowed Jefferson to win. It's definitely worth mentioning in the lead, but I find this excessive. I think WP:Undue weight comes into play here.

It doesn't help that I don't understand the criticism of Jefferson pertaining to the results of the election itself, not as a slave owner, as is often the case, but as the winner of an election. He won. 61.4% of people who voted did so for him. He won the states he needed to win. How is that his fault? Why should we blame him? The Consitution's rules had been drawn up over a decade before, in a process which Jefferson had no control over.

I am aware that I have not attempted to remove it, but I'm also not really sure how Adams opposing slavery and Jefferson supporting it is worthy of being mentioned here. I have not seen slavery cited as a major issue that impacted voters' choices during the 1800 election. So how is Jefferson's status as a slaveowner and Adams's status as a moderate slavery opponent relevant enough to be featured in the lead section?

The rest of the paragraph should definitely stay. It provided an interesting conclusion about the election which I would not otherwise have known. But "the temple of Liberty" quote, and perhaps the statements of Adams's and Jefferson's views on slavery as well, should be eliminated, at least from the lead section. It's excessive and one-sided. Display name 99 (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks. it is a lot easier to work together without them.

We agree the material is well cited so the only question is one of undue weight. Yes?

Slavery is the core political issue of US history. Everything else is both dwarfed by it and shaped by it. Three historians are cited in this paragraph, without being quoted, as concluding that the 3/5ths clause was key to Jefferson's win. Structurally, Jefferson would have lost had slaves not been 'represented' as they were in the constitution. This, and Jefferson's ownership of slaves, was a galling bit of hypocrisy coming from the man who did so much to give voice to the American revolution. There's a quote somewhere from the revolutionary period to the effect that the cries for liberty come loudest from the owners of slaves. Jefferson's hypocrisy was noted at the time. It's not connected to his (lack of) work on the constitution. It is also true regardless of whether slavery was a campaign issue. Slavery was not an issue in many early presidential campaigns, and yet slaveowners won most of the elections prior to 1860. How many virginians have been President since 1860?

Therefore, my opinion is that this one short and pithy quote does a great job of expressing a political reality of the time and of our time. I might not feel that way about a lengthy quote or long explanation, but as a sentence fragment it does a very good job. A single short sentence is not undue weight. It is weight that is long overdue, and a failure to fully expose it risks getting into racism.

regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 12:58, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

DMorpheus2, yes, we agree that the only issue is that of undue weight. I am well aware of the importance of slavery in American history, although I cannot acknowledge that every other event that has taken place has been "dwarfed" by its existence. My issue is not with the information concerning the slaves' impact on the electoral college. As I said above, that is an important analysis and should remain in the article. My issue is with the "temple of Liberty" quote and the relation of Jeffersons's and Adams's opinions on slavery. Of course Jefferson was a slaveowner, which is rather ironic, but I believe that the quote takes the criticism of him too far. It piles on the negativity to the extent of presenting a one-sided and biased view of the matter. One can sense the contradiction even with a general awareness of Jefferson's role as a founder and as a slaveowner.

I also repeat my belief that we do not need to state Jefferson's and Adams's opinions on slavery in the lead section-or maybe anywhere, really-in this article. After the drafting of the Constitution, slavery did not fully reemerge as a national issue again until the debate of the Missouri Compromise. Display name 99 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

May I suggest you read Garry Wills 'Negro President' or Akhil Reed Amar's work on this.

At this point we're merely re-stating arguments. I stand by mine; the content is sourced; if anything I think the issue has less weight than it should. Slavery was always an issue; denial of that is neither historically accurate nor worthy.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:30, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

DMorpheus2, very well then. I suppose we can re-engage here if somebody else comes along to give an opinion. Otherwise, I'll agree to let the content stand. Thank you. Display name 99 (talk) 19:28, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on United States presidential election, 1800. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061006223940/http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=341 to http://www.digitalhistory.uh.edu/documents/documents_p2.cfm?doc=341
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130914141726/http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html to http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/documents/presidential/electoral.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)

1801

Should this article's title be changed to United States presidential election, 1800–01? Unlike most of the other articles this election continued until February 1801. It would be visually inconsistent to make the change, but it would be more accurate.—GoldRingChip 15:23, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Reliable popular vote figures from before 1824 are not available

I find it quite bizarre that Wikipedia has actually claimed popular vote figures in presidential elections from before 1824, likely fudged from another website. I have deleted dubious popular vote references from the 1820 and 1816 elections. A request for comment would be very helpful. Classicalfan626 (talk) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

A mistake

Here - 1800 United States presidential election#1801 contingent election - it says February 11–17, 1800 – 1st through 35th ballots , and bellow it says February 17, 1800 (I mean the in table bellow, in the "Results" subsection). This is a mistake: The Contingent election was held on February 1801, not 1800 !! Please pay attention to that (@North Shoreman: , @Wtmitchell: , @Chewings72:). 76.21.97.234 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Depiction of Maine in the Electoral Map

The depiction of the border of the part of Massachusetts that is now Maine is incorrectly depicted as the modern border. It is depicted correctly from 1804 onward, gaining its modern shape in 1844 after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty that ended the Aroostook War. I encourage someone who is more skilled and familiar with these maps attempt to fix this. I know it's difficult given the weird borders of the states and territories in these early elections. Discuss the issue here. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:46, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

House Runoff

Article II of the Constitution as originally written states, "if no Person have a Majority, then from the five highest on the List the said House shall in like Manner chuse the President." Given that the top five winners went to the House runoff election and Adams came in at 3 what stopped Federalists in the House from electing him? Is there any scholarship on the issue? Emperor001 (talk) 19:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ignore last comment. Missed the preceding line for if two candidates have a majority. The line I quoted was if there was no majority." Emperor001 (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

63 + 8 = 71, not 73!

In the section, Voting, it says that "the two parties tied 63–63 in the Electoral College in the autumn of 1800," and that the last state to vote, South Carolina, cast its 8 votes for Jefferson/Burr. By my calculations (and probably anyone else's), that would give Jefferson/Burr a total of 71 EVs. But somehow, the article continues by stating the more historical fact that "all of the Democratic-Republican electors cast their votes for both Jefferson and Burr, 73 in all for each of them." So then where did the difference of 2 EVs come from? I added up all the states' EVs excluding SC, and the total does, indeed, add up to 65, not 63 as the section originally states.

Maybe I misunderstand, or I have overlooked something elementary. Or, perhaps basic arithmetic has changed since the Election of 1800! Or maybe I just can't add! 174.50.188.41 (talk) 00:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Hamilton

I disagree with the interpretation of the song at the bottom (one which appears to be all opinion in any case and has no citation). The words from Jefferson aren't saying that Burr wouldn't be VP, just that Jefferson had no intention of having Burr participate in any Executive Office duties in any way, making Burr merely the first of many figurehead VPs we've had over the years, token but for the possibility of a Senate tie.

In any case, the interpretation needs a citation (and also perhaps some alternate interpretations, also cited) or needs to be stripped out. Acroyear (talk) 13:18, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

There were no running mates. STOP CHANGING HISTORY

Aaron Burr never was a running mate. He was running for president against Jefferson and Adam's. There was no such thing as a running mate until 1804. PLEASE STOP CHANGING HISTORY. Infinity2323236 (talk) 23:17, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Why did the electors mess up the vote?

Why did the electors fail to give Jefferson an extra vote? Some sources say it was a mistake while others say it was a deliberate plan by the electors to create a tie. I've always heard it was some kind of mistake, but I just saw James Ceaser, professor of politics at U. of Virginia, say that "a couple of people in Jefferson's own party contrived to make sure that the vote between [Jefferson and Burr] ended up as a tie." Has new evidence or analysis been revealed lately? Which is it? Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:53, 9 December 2020 (UTC)

Based on what I've read, both parties agreed to pledge all of their votes equally for both of their respective candidates, seemingly with the expectation that at least one elector would cut someone. Both parties wanted to ensure that they would get as many electoral votes as possible in order to maximize their chances of winning the presidency, so everyone agreed to abstain from any schemes to raise one candidate over another. It was still expected that there wouldn't actually be a tie, though. So there was a deliberate plan by the parties to create a tie, and the mistake was that the plan actually succeeded. Hidragon456 (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm adding citation-needed to both assertions of the plan's existence and its unexplained failure. Can someone provide some suitable citation to anything at all about the plan? I imagine some source mentioned somewhere in the article says something about it, but a citation at the points that the plan is mentioned is needed so people can find it. Birdfern (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I've now found this: "That November Madison had assured his friends that Burr would lose a few votes in Virginia, giving Jefferson the top spot. But electors must have been confused or conflicted about the necessity of withholding votes from Burr. Perhaps they sought to avoid offending the New Yorker, who had been miffed in 1796 that southern Republicans had not supported him; he had received only 30 electoral votes compared to Jefferson's 68. In addition, Republicans may have been eager to reward the stellar work he had done in the New York election — and stay on the wily Burr's good side, too. In any case, they neglected to agree on a clear voting strategy in the Electoral College." Susan Dunn, "Jefferson's Second Revolution" (2004), p. 195.

But the only source Dunn cites for this (in the notes section, on p. 331) is "Brant, James Madison, 4:24". The only fuller citation by Dunn to Brant that I can find, on p. 295, is to "Irving Brant, James Madison: Father of the Constitution, 1787—1800 (Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill Company, 1950), 3:285". I think this means that the "4:24" citation was Dunn's botched attempt to cite not to Brant's 1950 book, but to page 24 of the fourth of his Madison books, 1953's "James Madison: Secretary of State, 1800-1809". But that book is not available online. Birdfern (talk) 21:26, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Turns out Brant's 1953 Madison book is available from archive.org with free registration. On pp. 25-26 it makes clear that, at least according to James Madison, the failure was not -- as Dunn inexplicably speculates despite citing to Brant -- due to Republican electors seeking to "avoid offending" Burr nor to "reward" him, nor due to any "neglect". Instead, the problem was that Jefferson-backing Republicans believed a Burr-backing Republican who was lying to them.

Madison wrote in 1824 that a potential constitutional amendment then being discussed would increase "the danger of having one electoral Body played off against another, by artful misrepresentations rapidly transmitted", and then stated unequivocally that "It is a fact within my own knowledge, that the equality of votes which threatened such mischief in 1801, was the result of false assurances despatched at the critical moment, to the Electors of one State, that the votes of another would be different from what they proved to be", and then cites to a letter by Burr ally David Gelston, who wrote on November 21, 1800 that "we are well aware from good information that three States, two at least, will give Mr J. 3 or more Votes, more than Mr B. will have". An annotation on Gelston's letter says "a confidence that this would be the case induced Virginia to give an unanimous tho’ reluctant vote for B. as well as J.". Brant wrote in 1953 that this annotation was written by Madison, which makes sense to me, but for some reason the editors of Madison's papers, in 1991(?), attributed it to "An early editor, possibly John C. Payne". Birdfern (talk) 23:59, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Tendentious wording of Disputes/Defective certificates section

The "Disputes: Defective certificates" section is tendentiously written. The subsequent use or misuse of the election of 1800 is an important element to cover but the wording of the whole section should be re-done in order to eliminate words like "timely", "misreading" etc. I don't feel sufficiently qualified in the details of the dispute to do it myself. Jtrrs0 (talk) 15:53, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Running Mates

The parties nominated their candidates on the same ticket (see Candidates section), and electors ran pledged to vote for both. They ran together under one (or more, depending on state rules) elector, not with competing electors pledged to one or the other. Take the election in the Edgecombe District, for example. There are only two electors here competing, not four. The Federalist is pledged to both John Adams and Charles Pinckney, while the Republican here is pledged to Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr. There weren't electors pledged to different Federalists competing amongst each other. There was not a Jefferson and Burr elector running against each other. They ran together.

Why is there a Jay elector then? Because the Federalists had an elector cast a vote for Jay so that the election wouldn't end up as a tie. The Republicans failed to do this, which is why a contingency election occurred.

@Master106: Know what you're talking about before making radical changes. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:07, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

This isn't like the 1796 election where some electors were pledged to a Jefferson/Clinton ticket and others a Jefferson/Burr ticket Wowzers122 (talk) 15:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Such bullshit. I know what I am talking about. If I did not; I would not have made the edits. There weren't any running mates before 1803. Master106 (talk) 23:49, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Need more proof? Here Pinckey is described as the vice presidential candidate for the Federalists and Burr is literally called Jefferson's running mate. You have provided no evidence that running mates did not exist at this time. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

How can Burr be called Jefferson's running mate they were campaigned against each other and both had thier own set of electoral collage votes? Not to mention the modern system of running mates only came into being after the 12th amendment Pikachubob3 (talk) 00:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)