A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on December 1, 2007, February 9, 2008, February 9, 2009, and February 9, 2010.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles United States: Presidential elections Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). Politics: American Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Hey folks, I just noticed that all the maps on this page all disagree with each other with regards to national and state borders... The only one that seems to be correct is the "by county" map in the General Election section. Apologies for the lack of references, but it'd be bad form to cite Wikipedia itself as a source.

The first map (electoral college) is a 1936-1942 map, as it shows modern shapes for Arkansas and Missouri, which were attained in 1828 (a treaty with the Cherokee Nation) and 1836 (the Platte Purchase) respectively, and excludes the 1942 additions to Maine and (current day) Minnesota.

The second map (House vote) is impossible. Arkansas has 1824-1828 borders, but the 1842 Maine border is present, the 1842 Minnesota arrowhead region is present, and the Oregon Country of 1846 is present. Those borders in the western territories are also hastily hand-drawn, from what I can tell.

The third map ("by county" results) is the only correct one, from what I can tell. (Correction edit: This one is impossible too. Maine and Minnesota are 1842, while Arkansas is 1824-1828)

The fourth map ("Results by state" section) is also impossible. Arkansas has a pre-1836 border, and Maine has a post-1842 border.

167.78.4.20 ( talk) 21:08, 7 January 2020 (UTC) reply

Another map mistake in the fourth map where New York has "C 14" which probably was meant to be "Cl 4" for Clay. User Red Devil 666 who created that map hasn't been an active editor for several years. -- Proofreader ( talk) 15:05, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Reading through this page, I noticed that some of the vote counts listed throughout are inconsistent. For example, the infobox says that Crawford won 39 electoral votes, but the results by state table says he won 41, and the breakdown by ticket table says he won 40. Someone needs to go through this page and ensure that all the information is consistent and accurate.

Jackson received 99 Electoral College votes in the election. But he didn't receive an of those from Maine or Delaware, they were given to Crawford. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riley Paul Turner ( talk • contribs) 03:54, 8 October 2022 (UTC) reply

Evidently the electoral map needs correction for Delaware. If Jackson won the state popular vote, then "2" in "DE 2 1" should be orange, rather than "1" be blue as we have. If the blue "1" is correct, then the state territory should be orange --representing a popular vote win and two electoral votes (colorless "2") for Crawford. -- P64 ( talk) 19:05, 1 May 2023 (UTC) reply

I was looking for a source on the numbers for the states, but I didn't see anything cited? The source in the infobox links to a dead link, and while I can find the original website ( Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections), the numbers don't match up. Per infobox, the numbers are:

• JQA - 113,122
• Jackson - 151,271
• Crawford - 40,856
• Clay - 47,531
• Total - 352,780

but on the website they are:

• JQA - 113,142
• Jackson - 151,363
• Crawford - 41,032
• Clay - 47,545
• "Unpledged Republican" - 6,616
• "Others" - 6,230
• Total - 365,928

So let's just change the votes to match right? NO! I also happen to own the United States Presidential Elections, 1788-1860: The Official Results by County and State by Michael J. Dubin (rip apparently) and so I checked there cause you can never be toooooo sure right? Correct! And uh... according to it the returns are...

• JQA - 111,811
• Jackson - 151,287
• Crawford - 47,417
• Clay - 47,707
• "Others" - 365
• Total - 358,587

Maybe Crawford got a little hungry and ate the 6,000 or so "Unpledged Republicans"? Maybe... but just because I'm already this far in, I decided to check out the website A New Nation Votes, which is a project by scholar and historian Phil Lampi with funding from the American Antiquarian Society, Tufts University, and the National Endowment for the Humanities which is a collection of election returns from 1787 to 1825. According to the website, he's been doing it for "50 years", and his "expertise in the area of Early American Politics has aided many contemporary scholars in their research at the Society."

Now usually I'll compare this website with Dubin, and usually (not always) they match. This isn't shocking since Dubin's books are listed as a research citation (The website is newer). But I'm talking about it (in extensive detail), so guess what! IT DOESNT MATCH UUUGGHHH

The website is broken down into counties and only has the statewide totals so by adding them you get (assuming I can count right)

• JQA - 122,440
• Jackson - 151,310
• Crawford - 48,152
• Clay - 48,650
• Others/scattering/unknown - 4,645
• Total - 375,197

"Which one do you suppose is correct then ms wowzers122?" Well, we can easily cross out the first one since it's just an outdated version of the Atlas website. The change from the old to new numbers appears to have occurred somewhere in 2008, according to archive org, and when looking at the pages from A New Nation Votes, a lot of them read "These election records were released on 11 January 2012. Versions numbers are assigned by state. Alabama, Arkansas, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Illinois, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, Ohio, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Virginia are complete and are in Version 1.0. All other states are in a Beta version."

The fourth one appearlently uses more corrected and newly released numbers which is why they are all higher and the number of "others" less.

Another problem I have with the Atlas is its lack of sourcing. If you go onto the page and click a state, it leaves the "Source for Popular Vote data:" section blank!? It's not like the website is allergic to sourcing either cause for more recent elections it provides sources. So who knows where it got its data from? You know who does provide a source though? Both Dubin's book and the website provide sources at the bottom of each page or table.

With all this difference we should also do what the 1820 election page has and under the results by state section say something like "Elections in this period were vastly different from modern-day Presidential elections. The actual Presidential candidates were rarely mentioned on tickets and voters were voting for particular electors who were pledged to a particular candidate. There was sometimes confusion as to who a particular elector was actually pledged to. Results are reported as the highest result for an elector for any given candidate. For example, if three Monroe electors received 100, 50, and 25 votes, Monroe would be recorded as having 100 votes. Confusion surrounding the way results are reported may lead to discrepancies between the sum of all state results and national results."

So basically what I'm trying to say is that we should switch the numbers on the page to the ones provided by A New Nations Votes. I'll do it myself I just want to make sure I'm not being too bold and adding 22,417 random voters. IDK maybe I'm missing something and making a fool out of myself its late and I NEED sleep... Wowzers122 ( talk) 07:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC) reply