If you could change just one presidential election..?

[DanimalBr]

If you could change just one presidential election from our entire country's history and make the winner the loser and make the loser the winner, which election would it be?

When answering this question please take into consideration how history would have changed.  For instance if you were to say you'd change the 1976 election and have Gerald Ford defeat Jimmy Carter, you'd also have to take into consideration that would have prevented Ronald Reagan from becoming president in 1980 and may have prevented him from ever becoming president.

[they don't love you like i love you]

1988. Stopping the elder Bush also stops his son. Two birds with one stone.

[nini2287]

1828-If Adams could have won legitmately (unlike 1824), it probably would have ended Jackson's career and although a two-party system would probably have been inenivitable, perhaps it would not have been so bitter.

[7,052,770]

1984, with no change in the polls or anything.  Just everyone gets up on Election Day and votes Mondale to the shock of everyone.

[zachman]

1968. If Humphrey won the hippie revolution would have continued, and America would have gotten out of Vietnam sooner.

[they don't love you like i love you]

Hmmm, I think I'll change my vote to 1980.

No Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Three birds with one stone!

[Jake]

Hmmm, I think I'll change my vote to 1980.

No Reagan, Bush I, or Bush II. Three birds with one stone!

No Reagan equals Bush I or Dole landslide in 1984 as Carter continues to destroy our economy.  1988 then sees the economy improving and the Soviet Union weakening which colmunates in a probable GOP win in 1992 by Jack Kemp/Richard Lugar.  Clinton never quite takes off, Bush II is still Governor of Texas, the GOP still gets credit for the 1980s economic improvements and toppling the Soviet Union.

As for me, I'd change the 1996 results by having everyone wake up on election day and write in Richard Lugar's name.  No 9/11, no Khobar Towers, no lax foreign policy, and no Lewinsky scandal.

[DanimalBr]

Interesting choices.   I honestly wouldn't want to change anything.   I wouldn't want to keep Clinton from winning the White House, because as much as I loathe the man, he did so much to help bring the Republicans to power.   

[DanielX]

1964. Just like these "no poll indication, just a sudden victory for Goldwater". 

Assuming the world survives to see 1972 (I assume it will - I seriously doubt Goldwater will cause WWIII), it will be a better one for it.

[TheWildCard]

I would not change anything. Even allowing Q. Adams to win the second time could severly alter history. If I was forced by gun point to pick one I would more than likely choose 1892. Hopefully another 4 years of Harrison wouldn't do too much harm and hopefully McKinley could still win his party's nomination and the election in 1896. Thus, time would not be changed too radically.

[YRABNNRM]

1912(TR) or 1964(Goldwater).

[King]

1976 changed to Ford-ROCKEFELLER.

[nclib]

2000 - oh wait, only the electoral "winner" needs to be changed.

Bush would not have been able to win in 2004 as a non-incumbent without the benefit of 9/11 unless Gore totally screwed up. (and even in that case, Gore might have lost in a primary)

[Bono]

1860. that's when all evil started.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

1968

[PBrunsel]

1932

Herbert Hoover continues his policies on the Depression, repeals Smoot-Hawley, and the economy imporoves by 1936. No New Deal to come along, but perhaps no social security.

[Rob]

1876.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

2000 - Have the guy who won take office

[A18]

The Florida legislature decides what electors to appoint, under the Constitution, period. They don't have to hold a popular vote, and if they do, they don't have to follow it.

Regardless of what I'm sure are your idiotic, obnoxious, discredited views on the Florida 2000 result, it's irrelevant.

Florida legislature appointed Bush's electors. He won.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

The Florida legislature decides what electors to appoint, under the Constitution, period. They don't have to hold a popular vote, and if they do, they don't have to follow it.

Regardless of what I'm sure are your idiotic, obnoxious, discredited views on the Florida 2000 result, it's irrelevant.

Florida legislature appointed Bush's electors. He won.

Read this about the SCOTUS ruling:
http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html

Anyways, they can't change the method of choosing electors after election day.

[MaC]

Hard one.  Either 1932 for Hoover. (Yah No more Social Security).  Or 1964 for Goldwater.  (Yah No more welfare or mediscare).  It's hard to choose because I belive FDRs defeat would probably keep the liberal reveolution from happening, and thus stop people like Johnson from getting in in the first place, but 1964 was a bigger deal because of the times.  American society totally changed and we might not have the welfare state we do today.

[A18]

Tip: when trying to get someone to take you seriously, don't post an AOL Hometown page. Also, no Geocities.

And actually, they can constitutionally change the way of appointing electors after 'election day,' provided that it's before the electoral college votes.

But that's not what happened. Florida's SC tried to invalidate Florida statute.

[Akno21]

2000. 12, possibly 16 years of Democratic leadership would help us in innumerable ways.

[George W. Bush]

 1988, That way Dukakis would have won and Dole could have beat him in 1992.

[Colin]

1964. Gotta go with Goldwater.