Talk:1820 United States presidential election

message: Monroe ran virtually unopposed, though a single vote for John Quincy Adams (then Secretary of State) was cast by one elector. (The belief that this was to ensure that George Washington remained the only president elected unanimously by the U.S. Electoral College seems to be a myth.)
What's the evidence for this being a myth or not? Timrollpickering 21:48, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Single vote myth 

message: The article says that no Federalist candidates were nominated to either President or Vice President, but the table shows several Federalists under the Vice Presidential category. Am I missing something? One-dimensional Tangent 17:23, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Federalist vice presidential candidates 

message: I understand the reasoning behind excluding Missouri's three electoral votes from the totals in this race. However, the totals have been reported as 231-1 ever since 1820. In cases like this, I would argue that it is preferable to include a footnote which states something to the effect that the total should be 228 because the vote of Missouri shouldn't have been included. 
This, of course, brings to the surface other uncounted states such as TN, LA, and AR in 1864, and AR 1872 in addition to states which should not have been counted, such as IN 1816 and MI 1836. Chronicler3 22:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missouri Electoral Vote 

message: There was a dispute as to whether Missouri's electoral votes were valid, due to the timing of its assumption of statehood. The first figure excludes Missouri's votes and the second figure includes them.
As to whether -> whether
For me, it seems slightly bizarre sounding but I think that is because the clause "as to whether" has become so frequent it has almost become idiom. 
--SamF 09:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elements of style 

message: I corrected the map, but I can't figure out how to upload it at Wiki Commons. The map is here in case anyone wants to post it: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3185/2729830544_0e7f8a8aa5.jpg?v=0 . Chronicler3 (talk) 21:48, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated election map 

message: This article could use a general clean-up for continuity.  Some information is duplicated in different sections, and it wasn't clear to me which section was the best place to add new information. Iglew (talk) 07:17, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: Adams should be in the top Infobox, as he received 1 electoral vote & thus was the runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 16:02, 3 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I see no reason for him not to be shown. Timmeh! 20:49, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Quincy Adams 

message: The electoral votes in this article do not match each other. The map in the infobox shows Monroe with 231 electoral votes, but the infobox itself only gives him 228. Is there some reason for this? If so, I can't see it. Timmeh! 20:48, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Electoral college numbers don't match 

message: Is the infobox appropriate for this article? Adams did not run and was not actually a candidate; the electoral vote which he got was a protest vote which happened to go to him. I would just remove the infobox entirely. If we must have an infobox, then I suggest we use one in the style of the 1789 and 1792 elections, with just one candidate. KarlFrei (talk) 09:15, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox is a definite standard for all articles about United States presidential elections. I think it should be left as is. Andy120290 (talk) 22:52, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the infobox is standard, but there was only one candidate, as in 1789 and 1792. Adams just happened to get a vote. Hence, this infobx gives the wrong impression, and therefore Adams should be removed... KarlFrei (talk) 12:03, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly disagree that there is no infobox for the presidential electoral vote count. The purpose of the box is to provide the result of the election at a glance, and the fact is that Monroe got 228/231 and Adams got 1. Facts are facts, and it does not matter if Adams was a "real" candidate or not. NPOV.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.28.144.82 (talk) 03:19, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infobox? 

message: If we are going to keep JQ Adams in the infobox (which I am not necessarily in favor of for above reasons), we should at least change his party label to read Democratic-Republican. He was a member of the party at the time, was serving as Monroe's VP, and the elector who voted for him was also a Democratic-Republican. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 21:27, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  JQA Party 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on United States presidential election, 1820. 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: 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, but I feel stupid when it comes to editing tables, so I might have messed some things up by accident. A lesson in table editing, or a cleanup from another Wikipedian for elections before 1824, or a request for comment would be very helpful. Classicalfan626 (talk) 22:22, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable popular vote figures from before 1824 are not available 

message: It should be pointed out (1) very few countries had reliable popular votes at this time, particularly not on a national level, yet Wikipedia gives totals for the election this year in France, which derives from equally inadequate sources; (2) the US elections of 1820 have better sourcing than almost any election in this period, coming from actual returns, (3) translations of the returns in question come to us from e.g. Dubin, U.S Presidential Elections 1788-1860, a book in my possession for about $20, and other books which any Wikipedian could buy if they chose.
The point is the USA had the vastest democracy at this point in history, so it is illogical that actual tallies of votes should be suppressed on Wikipedia for this era. Marplesmustgo (talk) 20:05, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Issues re the popular vote at this election

message: The state results table shows Monroe carrying Kentucky 58-42% over a slate of unpledged Federalist electors; however, the source cited for this claim (A New Nation Votes) does not record any votes cast for Federalist electors, pledged or otherwise —indeed, it records Monroe as carrying the state without opposition. Does anyone know where the figures in the results table came from, if not the cited source? Nathaniel Greene (talk) 05:13, 16 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kentucky popular vote 

message: I've kept the addition of the Federalist to the infobox because I believe it's misleading to say Monroe simply ran unopposed when people voted for the Federalist despite them having no candidate. And yes, I know most were pledged to Monore but they still ran electors against D-R electors to vote for Federalist vice presidents. And even if that's not convincing enough to be included in the infobox, Monroe still shouldn't be the only one on there as the Federalist ticket in Pennsylvania pledged to vote DeWitt Clinton for president. Wowzers122 (talk) 00:01, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of Federalist electors in the infobox