Talk:1800 United States presidential election

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 butt face! nice to see you!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! -- 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)

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)

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) I HATE YOU!!!

-- But it was assumed that he was going to take the vice presidency anyways, and it was a fluke, and he wasn't the main leader from the Republican party.  Jefferson was, and his main opponent was Adams, who was from a different party. :)