Talk:1880 United States presidential election

Popular Vote Difference

The article suggest Garfield won by less than 2,000 votes, but the map says it was more like 9,000.... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.19.101.114 (talk) 06:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Electoral map

Explain the little bit of blue at the bottom of California, please.

Syd1435 05:47, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

5 California electors cast votes for the Democratic; one cast a vote for the Republican Garfield. -- Decumanus 05:51, 2004 Nov 8 (UTC)

Electoral picture peculiarity

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

This post has been copied to Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy#Electoral picture peculiarity. Please direct your responses there.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Georgia vote

What is the source for Georgia not voting until 11/8/1880? The New York Times ran an article on 11/6/1880 with this headline: "GEORGIA'S BOURBON SOLIDITY.; THE DEMOCRATS GIVE HANCOCK ABOUT 35,000, BUT ARE BADLY SHAKEN UP." Chronicler3 02:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

The source is the National Archives. That datum was actually in the very first version of this page, which was essentially copy-and-pasted from the National Archives, and has survived ever since.

The confusion arises because they're not talking about the popular vote, but the electoral vote. Under the Constitution, electors are all supposed to cast their ballots on the same day, and, at the time, Congress had set that date to be the first Wednesday in December. There is a very strong argument that Georgia's electoral votes were constitutionally invalid and should not be included in the result.

— DLJessup (talk) 16:01, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Response. Interesting. In 1856, the Electors in Wisconsin were not able to meet on the appointed date due to a heavy snow, and they did not meet until the next day. The National Archives page does not mention the 1856 incident but mentions a similar incident in 1880. Chronicler3 22:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

My suspicion is that the Wisconsin electoral vote wasn't disputed in Congress in 1856, while the Georgia electoral vote in 1880 was so questioned. There are probably a few reasons for this:

• The Wisconsin voters in 1856 were clearly working in good faith: they had attempted to meet on the appointed day, and, when they couldn't, they met as soon as they could. The Georgia voters, on the other hand, met a week late.
• In 1880, the Civil War was still only fifteen years past, and Georgia was an ex-Confederate state in a Congress run by the Republicans. There would have been strong suspicion that Georgia had been up to some shenanigans.

— DLJessup (talk) 15:13, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Hancock

Hancock was not ridiculed as disloyal. In fact, the Republicans tended to avoid direct attacks on the general, focusing instead on his cronies.--Idols of Mud 21:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Anti-Masons in 1880

The anti-masonic movement of the late nineteenth century re-entered politics before 1880. The first national convention of this second wave of Anti-Masons assembled in the Second Congregational Church building in Oberlin OH in 5/22-23/1872 and nominated Charles F. Adams for President. He declined to run, and no replacement nominee was chosen. In 1876, the party held its second national convention in Liberty Hall, Pittsburgh, from 6/8-10/1876, where they nominated James B. Walker for President. Walker received 459 votes in the election. Phelps was nominated in 1880, but I have not been seen any information on where the national convention was held. The 1884 ticket of the party dropped out of the race, and the 1888 ticket was the last one offered by the party. Sources: James T. Havel, US Presidential Candidates and the Elections; Ohio Elects the President; CQ's Presidential Elections Since 1789. Chronicler3 16:14, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

California's vote

There is an error regarding the second paragraph in this section. "Notably, Garfield won the presidency without California. No presidential candidate managed to reproduce this feat until Woodrow Wilson's victory in the 1912 election and no Republican presidential candidate managed to reproduce this feat until George W. Bush's victory in the 2000 election."

Either this is untrue or the map for the 1884 election (seen at the top of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1884) is. As California is clearly shown as being won by the losing candidate, James G. Blaine, and not the winning, Grover Cleveland.

Republican Presidential Ballot Infobox

This is becoming very, VERY, painful to do, not only because the information is incomplete, but it is SO repetitive. :p

Doing what I can to complete it with what I have, but I wish to store it here in case I might lose it. --Ariostos (talk) 16:16, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Not exactly sure how to properly size it, though at least we have it now. --Ariostos (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2013 (UTC)

Presidential Ballot
Ballot	1st	2nd	3rd	4th	5th	6th	7th	8th	9th	10th	11th	12th	13th	14th	15th	16th	17th	18th	19th	20th
Ulysses S. Grant	304	305	305	305	-	-	305	306	308	305	305	304	305	305	309	306	303	305	305	308
James G. Blaine	284	282	282	281	-	-	281	284	282	282	281	283	285	285	281	283	284	283	279	276
John Sherman	93	94	93	95	-	-	94	91	90	92	93	92	89	89	88	88	90	91	96	93
George F. Edmunds	34	32	32	32	-	-	32	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31	31
Elihu B. Washburne	30	31	31	31	-	-	31	32	32	32	32	33	33	35	36	36	36	35	32	35
William Windom	10	10	10	10	-	-	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10	10
James A. Garfield	0	1	1	1	-	-	2	1	2	2	2	1	1	0	0	0	0	0	1	1
Others	0	0	1	0	-	-	0	0	0	1	1	1	1	0	0	0	1	0	1	1

Presidential Ballot
Ballot	21st	22nd	23rd	24th	25th	26th	27th	28th	29th	30th	31st	32nd	33rd	34th	35th	36th
Ulysses S. Grant	305	305	-	-	302	303	306	307	305	306	308	309	309	312	313	306
James G. Blaine	276	275	-	-	281	280	277	279	278	279	276	270	276	275	257	42
John Sherman	96	97	-	-	94	93	93	91	116	120	118	117	110	107	99	3
George F. Edmunds	31	31	-	-	31	31	31	31	12	11	11	11	11	11	11	0
Elihu B. Washburne	35	35	-	-	35	36	36	35	35	33	37	44	44	30	23	5
William Windom	10	10	-	-	10	10	10	10	7	4	3	3	4	4	3	0
James A. Garfield	1	1	-	-	2	2	2	2	2	2	1	1	1	17	50	399
Others	1	1	-	-	0	0	0	0	0	1	1	0	0	0	0	0

Notes; to keep track of "Others"

Benjamin Harrison: 1 vote - 3rd Ballot

Rutherford B Hayes: 1 vote - 10th, 11th, 12th Ballots

George W McCrary: 1 vote - 13th Ballot

Edmund J Davis: 1 vote - 17th Ballot

John F Hartranft: 1 vote - 19th, 20th, 21st, 22nd Ballots

Philip H Sheridan: 1 vote - 30th Ballot

Roscoe Conkling: 1 vote - 31st Ballot

Results Table

Not sure why someone is removing the results-by-state table. Such a sortable table of results-by-state is found on every single MAIN presidential article up to and including 2012. Putting it in the sub-article further analyzing the results too is fine, but it most certainly belongs in the main article. Those who look up the 1880 election should be able to see which candidate won what state with what percentage by what margin just as they can for every other election. Or sort the table by my most and least Democratic or Republican based on margin or percentage. That's why these tables are found on every main presidential election article. Going into further elaboration about WHY the results turned out the way they did is fine for the sub-article. Inqvisitor (talk) 09:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

For one thing: it's not cited to a reliable source. That's a problem. If you can find a reliable source, great, let's use it, but I've come up empty so far. For another: it's huge and takes up way too much space in the article, which is why I moved it into a sub-article. --Coemgenus (talk) 10:02, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

the cite is Walter Dean Burnham, Presidential ballots, 1836-1892 (Johns Hopkins Press, 1955) pp 247-57....a standard RS. It's useful so we should keep it in my opinion. Rjensen (talk) 11:37, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for that, Dr. Jensen. My main concern was having uncited material. There are a few libraries in my area that hold that book, including one to which I have alumni access. It will likely prove useful in this and future articles. Thanks again. --Coemgenus (talk) 12:03, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

Congratulations!

Congratulations to all the contributors to this featured article. You deserve a lot of applause, recognition and appreciation. What a wonderful article.

  Bfpage |leave a message  09:32, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Now a FA in Chinese Wikipedia

I have translated this article to Chinese Wikipedia here and promoted to FA status, and I want to thank User:Coemgenus for his effort to write this amazing article. --Jarodalien (talk) 13:53, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States presidential election, 1880. 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/20150530052312/http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohj/browse/displaypages.php?display%5B%5D=0089&display%5B%5D=381&display%5B%5D=399 to http://publications.ohiohistory.org/ohj/browse/displaypages.php?display%5B%5D=0089&display%5B%5D=381&display%5B%5D=399

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Readjuster in Virginia

According to the county map of the 1880 election, a candidate with the last name of Readjuster won several counties in Virginia. Who on Earth is Readjuster? Also, according to both this article and the 1880 election in Virginia article, the popular votes were split 60.53% for Hancock and 39.47% for Garfield. Is this a mistake? Where those counties marked Readjuster really throwaway votes or are they suppose to go for either Hancock or Garfield? --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:10, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

It looks like the Readjuster Party was just a split of the Democrats in Virginia that year and not a person named Readjuster. According to the article, in Virginia, a split in the Democratic Party occurred over the payment of state debts led to two Democratic electoral slates being nominated, one by the regular debt-paying "Funder" Democrats, the other by the "Readjuster" or anti-debt paying faction of the party. The Republicans initially hoped the split could lead Garfield to win the state, but the results were otherwise. However both slates ended up being pledged to the Hancock-English ticket. The Readjuster ticket received 31,527 votes, but the Funder Democrats took 96,449 votes, enough to defeat the Republicans, whose slate had 84,020. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 21:20, 22 March 2019 (UTC)

Number format (mixed fraction) in "Garfield lingered for two-and-a-half months before dying on September 19, 1881."

@Tkbrett: MOS:FRAC says "Mixed numbers are usually given in figures"; there is no need to spell out the numbers. Also, spelled-out numbers often constitute an invitation for editors to add completely useless and distracting hyphens, as in this case. From any perspective, "two-and-a-half months" is wrong. Chris the speller ^yack 15:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for explaining -- I'll revert myself. Tkbrett (✉) 16:45, 27 October 2022 (UTC)