Talk:1876 United States presidential election

message: I could be mistaken, but the main graphic, of the presidential election outcome on map, is confusing to me. Why here are republicans represented by blue states and democrats represented by red states. Am I missing out on a change in color association that was made some time ago? It is further confusing considering that all the states I would generally associate with voting liberal or conservative seem to be voting in the exactly opposite way they have for the past hundred years. Texas and most of the south for the democratic candidate and California and the east coast for a republican candidate. Somebody make sure that is right will you, and when you find out what on earth is going on somebody e-mail me please...natestaunton@hotmail.com
:After the civil war the south did not vote republican for a long time as the republicans and their leader Lincoln had won the civil war and emancipated the slaves; something which the south clearly did not like.  in the 20th century, the Democrat president Lyndon Johnson signed the civil rights act and predicted the Democrats would lose the South for a generation, this has turned out to be so as you point-out. This is what people have been used to recently and don't know about the hatred for republicans by the south following the civil war. tpbradbury (talk) 17:56, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Main graphic

message: Anyone know why the format of the "The Controversy" headline is different to the others? --Rebroad 23:10, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatting curiosities 

message: I added a link to the Compromise of 1877 in the "see also" section, but really it should be mentioned in more detail in the article. -- Marcus 2 Jun 2005
I added a sentence about it in the intro. -- Kevin 8 Feb 2006
Hayes won by heavy voting  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.135.39.101 (talk) 16:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise of 1877 

message: Quoth the article:
This led to each state submitting two sets of returns, one certified by the state's Governor (favoring Hayes), and the other certified by the state's legislature (favoring Tilden).
Does anyone know exactly what this means?  Were two entirely separate sets of electors assembled, each sending its own electoral votes to Congress? --Jfruh 02:15, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Two sets of returns"? 

message: Is the buissiness about Wisconson having a Communist party that got 32 votes true? It sounds a little suspiscious to me. 68.39.174.238 17:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  The Name Communist did not exist (as a name) until 1916AD in Russia. What this might refer to is a Socialist Party. However if you are refering to a current election, then the info maybe found elsewhere this article talks about the Currupt election of 1876ADMagnum Serpentine 19:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_League 108.131.126.108 (talk) 02:08, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commies? 

message: Peter Cooper had no middle name, or at least one that can be verified using 
Internet searches :-) . I am removing "Fennimore" until a citation can be given.
For more information see: Talk:Peter Cooper
 Lent 09:45, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Cooper's middle name 

message: Does anyone know if Colorado's appointment of electors by its legislature is the last instance of a state choosing its electors by some means other than a popular vote? --Jfruh (talk) 20:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colorado 

message: Dare we note that in Palm Beach County a lot of votes were probably miscast because of the way the ballot was designed? And people thought 2000 was unprecedented! Timrollpickering 17:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having found the reference it seems that county in particular was a myth. But the ballot was confusing. Timrollpickering 18:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Confusing ballots on Palm Beach County 

message: The section on Democratic Party nomination says "The 12th Democratic National Convention assembled in St. Louis just nine days after the sex scandal" but it does not reference what sex scandal they are talking about.  Does anyone have enough info to correct this? Jablair51 16:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup.  There wasn't one.  (SEWilco 17:35, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sex Scandal 

message: One of the elector numbers must be wrong: if Hayes got 165 votes at first and 19 were undecided, this does not add up to 185.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:11, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The single disputed Oregon vote often causes confusion. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:57, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Number of electors 

message: Does anyone know why the headings for the convention results are beneath the actual results? This is confusing, as it appears as if the presidential candidates were the vice presidential candidates. Also, the style of these headings (purple with a red dashed border) is not consistent with the other articles in this series and obscures parts of the text. 
I will wait a few days and if no-one objects will change the headings to better fit the article.Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:25, 31 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: headings for balloting

message: The artcle acknowledges that there was systemic violence and fraud. How can there be "no question" who won the popular vote? 108.45.79.25 (talk) 19:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  "No question?" 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election, 1876. 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/20060220200717/http://elections.harpweek.com:80/controversy.htm to http://elections.harpweek.com/Controversy.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1876 to http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=352150
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1876 to http://southernspaces.org/2009/corporations-corruption-and-modern-lobby-gilded-age-story-west-and-south-washington-dc
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1876 to http://www.loc.gov/rr/program/bib/elections/election1876.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1876 to http://geoelections.free.fr/USA/elec_comtes/1876.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120825102042/http://www.mit.edu/~mi22295/elections.html#1876 to http://elections.harpweek.com/09Ver2Controversy/Overview-1.htm
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) 16:06, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In the Electoral Disputes section, it is very interestingly quoted that "In this election, many Democratic ballots were printed with the Republican symbol, Abraham Lincoln, on them", cited from the BBC. First, can we find an academic secondary source – newspapers are never perfect on academic facts, and we also want to be able to source things like specific states and counties in which the ballot ruse was committed.
More importantly (for both verification and as an important illustration to the reader), can anyone find an image of such a deceptive ballot? A google search turned up several Hayes–Tilden ballots, but they were all legit, though all from Northern states, so I'm thinking university libraries anywhere in key Southern states of the time like Virginia, Texas, and the Carolinas (and of course anywhere in DC) would be a good place to start looking. SamuelRiv (talk) 00:07, 29 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image for Lincoln-Rooster ballot 

message: Did Tilden get 4,288,546 votes (as indicated in the top template) or 4,286,808 votes (as indicated in the body of the article? bd2412 T 20:30, 8 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Did Tilden get 4,288,546 votes or 4,286,808 votes? 

message: Something of the anti-Catholic sentiment evident in Rutherford B. Hayes#Private life and return to politics and :File:Grant to Hayes - I guess that reform bait wont work this side. Better try and anti-Catholic worm LCCN2008661717.jpg should be added to this article. Daask (talk) 14:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Anti-Catholicism 

message: Under the Electoral disputes section there is a paragraph where it is speculated that without issues like voter intimidation and suppression, Hayes would have won the election anyway. First of all, I'm not sure this kind of what-iffing is appropriate for Wikipedia in the first place. Even if it is, the paragraph relies entirely on a single source - an article in a defunct newsletter (?) called Buttons and Ballots. I don't know how reliable this source is, but it's definitely not authoritative enough to warrant speculation about who would have won "fair and square". At the very least, more/better sources would be needed. Jah77 (talk) 17:07, 28 February 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I've seen multiple historians assert that one candidate would have won a fair vote and the other would have won a fair count but rarely going into detail as they're usually in general accounts rather than detailed analysis of the election. They also don't always make clear whether they're talking about the popular vote or the Electoral College, or for that matter if they're talking about votes actually cast or votes that would have been cast (or even votes that might have been cast differently under fairer circumstances). Timrollpickering (talk) 14:03, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Speculation