Talk:1812 United States presidential election

message: Natalinasmpf just made an edit, removing the parentheses from “(Democratic-)Republican” in the first paragraph, with the edit summary, “I understand they were originally called Republican, but why the parentheses?”
Almost every United States history book I've read refers to Jefferson's party as the “Republicans”.  But, if every reference to Jefferson's party in the article is to the “Republicans”, inevitably somebody not terribly familiar with United States history will post a message on the talk page or make an edit in which they confuse Jefferson's party with the modern Republican party.  Thus, in the first reference to the Jefferson's party, the name “Republican” is prefixed with “(Democratic-)” to differentiate this party from the modern Republicans and to simultaneously let the reader know that “Republican” will be used going forward.  If the parentheses are left off, the reader might be led to believe that “Democratic-Republican” and “Republican” are referring to distinct parties.
— DLJessup (talk) 01:40, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Lemuel Taylor, of the City of Baltimore, will be supported in conjunction with any other democratic republican candidate from another part of this district, as an elector of president and vice president of the U. States; and will, if elected, vote for Dewitt Clinton, of New York, as president of the U. States. Chronicler3 02:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of parentheses in “(Democratic-)Republican” 

message: How come the election map for this election describes the Federalist candidate as "Fusion"? 172.188.48.9 13:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just searched the NEHGS newspaper index. The first mention of Ingersoll as a VP nominee in 1812 came in the newspaper the Bennington VT Newsletter on 9/16/1812, not long after the PA state convention referenced earlier. Chronicler3 15:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Wilson won more of the popular vote in 1916 (49.2% vs. 41.8%), but less of the electoral vote (277 EVs vs. 435). JCaesar (talk) 22:22, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mr Fusion? 

message: I think there is at least a healthy level of uncertainty in listing DeWitt Clinton as a Federalist in the infobox. From reading the article (and other sources), it appears that Clinton was a Democratic-Republican who ran with some Federalist support but WITHOUT the official nomination or endorsement of the Federalist party. As such, would his candidacy not be better described as "Independent" or "Fusion" (as it is in some other sources)? Listing Clinton as a Federalist in the infovox, and then essentially stating the opposite in the rest of the article, is confusing at best and needs to be reconciled.
If no-one has any objections within the next three weeks or so I will change the infobox to show Clinton as an IndependentNathaniel Greene (talk) 00:48, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clinton' political party 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election, 1812. 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 ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Two of the maps :File:ElectoralCollege1812.svg and :File:ElectoralCollege1812-Large.png are unreadable by some colorblind readers. Either use high grayscale-contrast colors, or add some non-color-based way to preceive the information. 
The issue was reported at Village Pump Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)#COLOR OF CHARTS, GRAPHS AND MAPS by Beauregard Armistead. Non-colorblind editors can test the issue using  coblis-color-blindness-simulator. Alsee (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tagged: Cleanup colors 

message: Might be worth mentioning that this was the first election in which New York was the state with the most electors (which, I believe, it remained until 1968) SecretName101 (talk) 09:12, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  NY 

message: Might be worth mentioning that this was the first presidential election since the statehood of Louisiana (thus the first presidential election in which Louisiana voted).SecretName101 (talk) 09:20, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  LA 

message: I removed Langdon from the infobox, because (unlike Eagleton in 1972), he never accepted his party's vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 15:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Langdon 

message: 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) 23:33, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There are reliable popular vote references available: I can think of "A New Nation Votes" (which I think is the website you claim totals have been "fudged" from) or Michael J. Dubin, United States Presidential Elections 1788-1860, for two. While some states chose electors by the legislature in this period, others did so by popular vote and these are reasonably well recorded. I think your unilateral decision to remove vote totals is very short-sighted and should be reversed.Marplesmustgo (talk) 19:12, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable popular vote figures from before 1824 are not available