Talk:List of people who received an electoral vote in the United States Electoral College

Candidates by election year

Wouldn't it be much simpler to make a list of Presidential candidates, for each election year, and then highlight the winner? This would naturally give us a list of the unsuccessful ones. Incidentally do you cound losing candidates who later go on to win? DJ Clayworth 15:23, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I agree. Do something along the lines of the Presidents table in President of the United States, with five columns: Democratic-Republican, Federalist, Whig, Democrat, Republican... - Calmypal 15:29, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

List commenced at List of U.S. Presidential candidates.

Burr in 1800

Why does this not include Aaron Burr in the U.S. presidential election, 1800? Burr got 73 EC votes (53%) but was not elected President, either by the Electoral College or (after 35 ballots) by the House of Representatives. By the end he was certainly a candidate. --Henrygb 03:33, 16 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Lockwood in 1884?

I'd asked over at Talk:Faithless elector about Belva Ann Lockwood who supposedly claimed to have won Indiana's electoral votes, just wanted to mention it here too. If you know more, post at Faithless elector to keep the discussion centralized, thanks. Шизомби 18:49, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Presidents who failed bids at reelection

"Presidents who failed bids at reelection are not included. "

In line with that construction, I am removing Van Buren in 1840; Cleveland 1888; Benjamin Harrison 1892; Taft in 1912; and Ford in 1976.

Edit Feb. 25, 2007: power went out before the edit of the page was complete. I am re-thinking this. I think a list of presidential candidates who received votes in the Electoral College by election year is a better idea. I will see if I can make time to do that Justus R 20:32, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Contradiction

Under 1872, it says that Charles Jenkins and David Davis earned 2 and 1 electoral votes respectively, but the percentage for both is 0.5%. This is obviously incorrect, but I don't know what is. Can someone please fix that? Reywas92^Talk 18:56, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

And Horace Greeley has three votes and 1%, also contradictory. Reywas92^Talk 18:57, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Veeps

Why are Vice Presidents included on this list if the title of the article is "List of candidates for PRESIDENT of the United States who received at least one electoral vote"? 174.57.199.184 (talk) 01:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

Per the intro, it's supposed to be (and is) a list of every person in the United States that received an electoral vote. The page should probably be moved to something like "List of people who received an electoral vote by the United States Electoral College" or something, since some of the people here (Walter Jones, Harry Byrd) were never really candidates at all and were the result of faithless electors.--173.161.113.17 (talk) 11:26, 30 January 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 21 December 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per consensus. (non-admin closure) Tiggerjay (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

---

List of candidates for President of the United States who received at least one electoral vote → List of people who received an electoral vote in the United States Electoral College – As noted in the section above, this list includes vice-presidential candidates who never ran for President; as of the 2016 electoral college tally, it includes several people who were not running for anything at all (Colin Powell, Elizabeth Warren, Faith Spotted Eagle). bd2412 T 17:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

• Support. Some of these were never "candidates" (as noted). Neutrality^talk 17:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support move.  ONR  (talk)  00:07, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
• Support As noted above, this list includes many people who were never Presidential candidates, including Vice Presidential candidates and others who have never run for either office. --haha169 (talk) 06:27, 22 December 2016 (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 or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Colors mean what? No legend.

Shouldn't there be some kind of explanation of what the various row colors in the table mean? Because there isn't. IAmNitpicking (talk) 13:57, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Percentage

In the early elections, electors cast two votes each. Perhaps the percentages should not be based on the total number of votes, but on the maximum number of votes a candidate could receive. For example, in the first election, 69 electors voted; the total number of votes was 138, but as one could not cast two votes for the same person, the maximum number of votes a candidate could get was 69. Hence, George Washington won with an astounding 100%, not 50%. Bever (talk) 02:16, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

I think this is a great idea, and came here to suggest it myself. Perhaps a parenthetical would be the best way to do this. So Washington would be either read 100% (50%) or 50% (100%) depending on which number we wanted it to be more consistent with. (That is, he got 50% of the overall "votes for President," but he got 100% of the number of votes he was eligible to receive.) The reason and meaning of the parentheticals would be explained clearly in the introduction, which already notes that there was a change in 1804. And since it is widely known that Washington was elected unanimously, it seems strange (and perhaps incorrect, to some people) to show him at just 50%. ---38.104.29.62 (talk) 15:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Table re-formatting suggestion

Tim Thomason, Lantzy - I propose re-formatting of the table as it is definitely a noteworthy topic, but the table is bit confusing. I tried to make it in a better form as given in the two proposed tables below. The only major problem remains in sorting the table. Instead of five rows of Nixon, I made a single row, but it would split upon sorting. Also, I don't think that the names should be sorted by surnames. I would prefer if a Contents box (As in List of marches composed by John Philip Sousa) and a legend box is added. Also, would it be fine if the table is separated into two parts with 1788-1800 in one part and 1804-2020 in another. I plan on working these changes in the future. It would be better if table is chronological. Would appreciate other comments? Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Proposed table 1 (If table is chronological)

Election	Candidate	State	Political party	Electoral votes	Percentage	Ref.
1992	Bill Clinton	Arkansas	Democratic	370 (P)	68.8%
	George H. W. Bush	Texas	Republican	168 (P)	31.2%
	Al Gore	Tennessee	Democratic	370 (VP)	68.8%
	Dan Quayle	Indiana	Republican	168 (VP)	31.2%

Proposed table 2 (If table is alphabetical. Candidates are in random order just for sample)

Candidate	State	Political party	Election	Electoral votes	Percentage	Ref.
							George H. W. Bush	Texas	Republican	1980	489 (VP)
1984	525 (VP)
1988	426 (P)
1992	162 (P)
Richard Nixon	California	Republican	1952	442 (VP)
			1956	457 (VP)
			1960	219 (P)
	New York		1968	301 (P)
	California		1972	520 (P)
John Edwards	North Carolina	Democratic	2004	1 (P)
				252 (VP)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:15, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Looks good to me. This is a pretty archaic looking box created when there were different sets of standards for similar tables, and not really updated with the times. I'm not sure of the necessity of images, and my thinking when I created this "List of people..." was for a pure alphabetical list to compare and contrast each individual's popularity overall, but the sorting really solves any problem with that. I also agree with splitting up the two electoral systems (1788-1800 and 1804-2020) because of the different rules and there are only about three people (George Clinton, Thomas Jefferson, and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney) who received votes in both systems.--Tim Thomason 12:58, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tim Thomason: Thanks for your reply. The table definitely has to be split, but my main concern remains which type of proposed table to go forward with? I favor Proposed Table 1 as it can easily be sorted, but the names of candidates would be repeated several times, while Proposed Table 2 can't be easily sorted. Also, I figured out some other issues too:

• Should the article be divided into two different parts with people receiving voted for President and Vice President being separated from the combined list.
• Removing images isn't a big deal, but do we need other row dealing with age of the candidate when they received electoral vote. (I guess William Jennings Bryan is youngest at 36 and Ron Paul is oldest at 81)

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

---

Here's a proposal for what the final 1788-1800 table should look like:

...and here's a select view of what the 1804-2020 table should look like (specifically 1804, 1992, 2016, 2020):

...after spending the better part of a day on these eight elections (out of 59), I think I can safely agree that Vice Presidential Electoral votes (1804-2020) should probably be split off into a third (or 2.5) section. Something like "-1788-1800-" and "-1804-2020- --Presidential-- --Vice Presidential--", if you catch my drift. There is no real utility in counting vice presidential electoral votes alongside presidential ones, since the 12th Amendment pretty much redefined two separate classes of electoral votes.

These were all based on Proposed Table 1. Proposed Table 2, on the other hand, is more faithful to the "list of people" and it helps to see Nixon and Bush and other VP's turned Presidents. Surprising people with FDR's candidacy as a Vice President many years ago or the faithless elector vote for James Polk as VP. I'm siding with Table 1, mainly on the presumption that the VPs should be split off into a third table (and, thus, there's no need to list everyone alphabetically).--Tim Thomason 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)

@Tim Thomason: I definitely agree with you and think that after making these changes, we can hopefully look forward with a FLC. I would definitely update all the entries in the table within 1-2 weeks. I tried making similar changes in List of United States Democratic Party presidential candidates and it is underway. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)