Which elections would you consider "fair" elections?

[Plankton5165]

People were saying 2016 wasn't fair, I guess 2012 and 2008 were fair elections.

[Karpatsky]

Those in which the result matched the democratic process and there was no major tampering. It's probably easier to name the 'unfair' elections - 1824, 1876, 1888, 1960, 1972, 2000, possibly 2004, 2016.

[Peanut]

Indeed, unfair elections are easier to list. Post-1860:

Unfair due to actual mistabulation or clearly illegal legal shenanigans

1876
Possible argument for 1960, personally don't believe it
1972, due more to the deck being so stacked against McGovern by the CREEP than by actual miscounting
2000

Unfair due to our inherently undemocratic system

1888
1876
2000
2016

Unfair due to widespread voter suppresion

Most Deep South, pre-Roosevelt era Democratic 98,5% wins

[morgankingsley]

The only "unfair" election is 1824, the only election in which the winner of the actual real system in which elects the president didn't win. Jackson should have won as he had the most electoral votes, but didn't. Every other election the candidate who won the electoral vote, therefore the way the election was decided, won the election and as per the rules of the election, was a fair election

[Karpatsky]

The only "unfair" election is 1824, the only election in which the winner of the actual real system in which elects the president didn't win. Jackson should have won as he had the most electoral votes, but didn't. Every other election the candidate who won the electoral vote, therefore the way the election was decided, won the election and as per the rules of the election, was a fair election

"Fair" implies a normative assessment. Elections which are technically legitimate under an unfair system do not magically become fair. Also, by that argument, the electoral vote is irrelevant unless a candidate receives more than half, in which case whoever Congress votes for is 'fairly' elected.