Talk:1800 United States presidential election

message: 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)
thread_title: Wrong Data

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: I agree with 86.178.146.194 Rjensen (talk) 23:08, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who ran for president and who were their running mates? 

message: "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)
thread_title:  opinion statement 

message: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Aaron Burr 

message: *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)
thread_title:  One House Vote that should not have been counted

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

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

text: I made the edit thank you. 75.88.82.247 (talk) 03:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contingent election section 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Political parties 

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

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

text: 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)
thread_title: Regarding election of 1800

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:41, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
thread_title:  1801 

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) 23:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reliable popular vote figures from before 1824 are not available 

message: 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 ( ,  , ).  76.21.97.234 (talk) 01:53, 18 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A mistake 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Depiction of Maine in the Electoral Map 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: House Runoff

message: 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)
thread_title:  63 + 8 = 71, not 73! 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Hamilton 

message: 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)
thread_title:  There were no running mates. STOP CHANGING HISTORY 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Tendentious wording of Disputes/Defective certificates section