Talk:1824 United States presidential election/Archive 1

was he successful?
It never says in the article that John Quincy Adams won... ugen64 23:43, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)
 * It implies it, but there's nothing to say by what mechanism Adams actually became president. Deadlock 16:27, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think on February 9, 1825, the House of Representatives chose John Quincy Adams, winner of neither the electoral nor popular vote in the 1824 presidential election, as the sixth President of the United States. But I can't confirm the date. Can anyone help, please ?  Thanks. -- PFHLai 04:10, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)


 * February 9, 1825 is correct. See 18 House Journal 219 – 222.  (To check this out online, go to .  If this link doesn't work, go to  and proceed from there.) &mdash; DLJessup 00:26, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Derivation of the ticket pairings
According to the National Archives, here's the state-by-state electoral vote in 1824:

Applying the same techniques as were used in Talk:U.S. presidential election, 1796, this transforms into:

Now, looking at Maryland, the elector who voted for Jackson for President couldn't have voted for Jackson as Vice President. (The first time somebody voted for the same person for both President and Vice President was the Minnesota “faithless elector” who voted for John Edwards for both President and Vice President in 2004.) Therefore, that elector had to vote for Calhoun, yielding one additional Jackson/Calhoun ticket:


 * Maryland has a document online about their elector breakdown which goes Jackson/Calhoun 7, Adams/Sanford 3, Crawford/Macon 1. But as we can see, the breakdown for President was 7-3-1, but the VP breakdown was 10-1. So the dispute involves 4 different pairings. Crawford/Calhoun, Crawford/Jackson, Adams/Jackson, Adams/Calhoun. The most likely breakdown would be Adams/Calhoun and Crawford/Jackson. Although solid evidence hasn't been found for this, and weirder votes have occurred than Adams/Jackson. The 3 Adams electors deserted, 2 have already been counted for Adams/Calhoun and the remaining electors both deserted the VP candidate mentioned in my link. Just adding this to see if it helps out any. --RobbieFal (talk) 23:15, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Incorrect map
Map appears to show incorrect results for Delaware MrMingsz (talk) 06:26, 5 April 2009 (UTC) Also Maine is incorrect. Adams won all 9 electoral votes there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.184.187.182 (talk) 04:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 1824 → United States presidential election, 1824–1825 — John Quincy Adams was elected President on February 9, 1825 by members of the House of Representatives in a contingent election, following a failure of any of the candites to get a majority of the vote in the general election of 1824. As the presidential election overall took place between October 1824 and February 1825, it seems sensible to include both years in the article title. This is what what we do in the case of the United States presidential election, 1788–1789 article. —84.92.117.93 (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Running Mate Errors
It looks like [this edit] changed all the running mates to the same guy. I'm going to switch them back to what they were, but this period of American history isn't my best, and I don't have the time to source. Could someone take a look, please? --Joshrulzz (talk) 19:18, 9 February 2010 (UTC) Edit: I used the first running mate from the list for each candidate, as it looks like they were trying to give relative order of votes for the runners-up. --Joshrulzz (talk) 19:26, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

"One Party Government"
"The previous few years had seen a one-party government in the United States, as the Federalist Party had dissolved, leaving only the Democratic-Republican Party."

I'm not sure one-party government is an accurate description. For one thing, United States Congressional elections, 1788-1997 (Michael Dubin) lists Representatives who were elected as Federalists in 1824, so by all indications, that party folded into the Adams party post 1824. The US for the Monroe term could be more accurately described as a Dominant-party system instead of a one-party government. --RobbieFal (talk) 23:20, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Candidates color under portrait
Does anyone know how to change the color under the presidential candidates pictures so that they will correspond with the electoral map. This would be a really big help. --sullivan9211 (talk) 17:01, 24 January 2011 (CST)

Map is incorrect
The map showing the electoral votes by state is WRONG!!! Compare it to the national archives chart on the talk page or to any other source for that matter. Does anyone know how to fix this?98.16.147.9 (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Source of popular vote numbers?
The article says that "...the popular vote was not measured nationwide at the time. Several states did not permit a popular vote...", yet there are popular vote totals in the infobox. The question is resolved later in the article, so I added a footnote to the infobox numbers. WCCasey (talk) 17:25, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Why was voter turnout so low?
Voter turnout in this election was an all-time low of 26%. I assume states that did not allow a popular vote are not counted in that statistic, so can we improve the article by mentioning this fact and explaining why it was so low? Thanks! 128.208.7.104 (talk) 23:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Because democracy wasn't a big thing back then. The turnout would be even much lower if one would have considered the elections before 1824 (which actually also have popular votes recorded in the National Archive). This changed when Andrew Jackson (the first president from the people, not from the elite and not born rich), the Democratic Party as propably the first modern membership party in the world and Jacksonian democracy came. Rising the political attendence and participation of common and simple people, tearing down electoral boundaries and ending zensus suffrage (though only for whites of course) and in some kind finalising what Jefferson had begun (his Republicans had also rised the votes with Jeffersonian democracy in contrast to the elitist Federalists) was one of their core principles, and they were very succussful with it (much more than Jefferson had ever been), as the turnout and result of 1828 show. There's a reason why it was called Democratic Party. The supposed actions of Adams and Clay in this election and the continiously overexaggerated accusations also seem to have set the perfect help for that agenda. (Ironically, one could call Jackson a hypocrite, again just like Jefferson, as he wielded very dominant, unprecedented power in politics, even after leaving office, dictating his successor's actions, and invented the spoils system to secure the support and discipline in his modern party, which could be called just as corrupt as the "corrupt bargain" and has been continued by all presidents until today, while his predecessor had selected a pluralistic cabinet, no matter what party affiliation). --SamWinchester000 (talk) 07:16, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Map Problems
The map for this article shows Maine as casting 8 votes for Adams and 1 for Jackson; however, the National Archives (http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1821_1837.html#1824) records Adams as having won all 9 electoral votes. Can someone change the map to reflect this?

In the meantime, are there any objections to using this map, at least until this error is corrected?

Nathaniel Greene (talk) 00:56, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Capitalization
has just reverted the my three edits in which I un-capitalized president and vice president in these cases: I did this based on MOS:JOBTITLES which says:
 * John Quincy Adams was elected president on February 9, 1825.
 * ... the candidate who received the most electoral votes (Andrew Jackson) did not become president, ...
 * Electoral Votes for president
 * For vice president, (candidate-name) (6x)
 * (No vote for vice president)
 * Thus Adams was elected president on February 9, 1825
 * Offices, titles, and positions such as president, king, emperor, pope, bishop, abbot, and executive director are common nouns and therefore should be in lower case when used generically: Mitterrand was the French president or There were many presidents at the meeting.

In each of the above cases, I believe the job title is used generically, and they seem to be very comparable to the example Mitterrand was the French president. Further, they do not seem to me to fall into the three specific exceptions which MOS:JOBTITLES lists:
 * They are capitalized only in the following cases:
 * When followed by a person's name to form a title, i.e. when they can be considered to have become part of the name: President Nixon, not president Nixon
 * When a title is used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name, e.g. the Queen, not the queen, referring to Elizabeth II
 * When the correct formal title is treated as a proper name (e.g. King of France; it is correct to write Louis XVI was King of France but Louis XVI was the French king)

I presume that either (a) you are either referring to a different part of the MOS which supplies different direction or (b) you see that one of these three exceptions applies to the examples listed above. Please clarify. Thank you and happy editing! YBG (talk) 23:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)


 * The changes in capitalization were made to the titles - correct me if I am wrong, but under MOS:JOBTITLES which you cited, such things would be capitalized. SirLagsalott (talk) 00:06, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
 * As I read it, one of the three specific exceptions applies, the title is a common noun and so should not be capitalized.
 * #1 doesn't apply, because in no case is the title immediately followed by a person's name. "For vice president, (candidate-name)" is the closest, but that cannot apply -- because five of the six individuals were not elected.
 * #2 doesn't apply because the title is not "used to refer to a specific and obvious person as a substitute for their name", i.e., by saying "The President said" in place of "Mr. Obama said".
 * #3 doesn't apply because in none of these places is "the correct formal title is treated as a proper name". For that to be the case, it would have to say "President of the United States" or "Vice President of the United States".
 * So have I missed something here? YBG (talk) 03:39, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

Congressional Map
The style used for the map of the congressional election of 1825 has since been succeeded by a new style. Here's a new one:



Ftrhi (talk) 21:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Erm, that's a highly inaccurate map. It has a 1824-1828 Arkansas shape, but features of 1842 changes in Maine and present-day Minnesota. Plus, take a look at the poorly-edited southern border of the western territories, and the borders of Missouri and Arkansas! Here's a more-accurate map for comparison (except Maine and Minnesota).



167.78.4.20 (talk) 21:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Found a source with a lot of other sources
BRIA 8 4 a The Election of 1824-25: When the House Chose the President (archive) has a dozen and a half references that may be useful in expanding this article or providing references for un-referenced items in this article. davidwr/ (talk)/(contribs)  02:15, 10 July 2016 (UTC)

Plurality
Article notes this was the only US Presidential election where the candidate with the plurality of votes didn't win. Shouldn't that read "prior to Rutherford B Hayes""?

68.5.190.51 (talk) 00:33, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The article says "plurality of electoral votes." Whether legitimately or not, in 1876 Hayes won the electoral college by 1 vote (20 votes were disputed, see United States presidential election, 1876 and its references for details).  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As a bit of trivia, in United States presidential election, 1800, Vice-Presidential candidate Aaron Burr got the same number of electoral votes as his running-mate, Thomas Jefferson. So, in that election, no candidate had a plurality.  The Constitution was changed prior to the 1804 election to prevent such a thing from happening again.  davidwr/  (talk)/(contribs)  03:08, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

Albert Gallatin
I removed Gallatin from the infobox because (unlike Eagleton in 1972), he never accepted his party's vice presidential nomination. GoodDay (talk) 16:01, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Replace "Republicans" with "Democrat-Republicans"
Article uses the term "Republicans" a number of times. Do you agree that Republicans should be replace by "Democrat-Republicans"? For example, would it not be better to change, "intense rivalries among Republicans" to "intense rivalries among Democrat-Republicans". — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeacePeace (talk • contribs) 20:39, 7 March 2019 (UTC)
 * the issue emerges because historians always have preferred "Republican" (the usual term in the primnary sources) and political scientists prefer "Democrat-Republicans" a term that came into use in the 20th century. Both terms are strongly based in the reliable secondary sources. The article should make clear both are useful terms depending on one's disciplinary approach. Rjensen (talk) 21:51, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Vermont
Listed as no popular vote but popular vote total 35k. What gives? --JWB (talk) 19:21, 25 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
An IP has been heavily editing this page for the past month, in particular, the lead section. Most of their edits fail MOS:LEADLENGTH, MOS:JOBTITLES, MOS:EGG, MOS:CITELEAD, and WP:DETAIL. Note that this page lacks sufficient inline citations, so I will be adding More footnotes and restoring the original lead section again. --Wow (talk) 10:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I ended up restoring for a third time, I think this discussion should be expanded. If the IP or anyone else wants to modify the lead, please gain consensus first. Of all of the lead sections in the U.S. presidential election pages, this one would be the longest. In fact, this situation reminds me of the one at the 2016 election page. --Wow (talk) 08:08, 19 May 2019 (UTC) Resolved. Turns out many of the changes were unsourced, so the page isn't that different to the version on April 17. --Wow (talk) 23:22, 22 May 2019 (UTC)