Talk Elections

discuss please.

1860

1800

1932

1800

1860 is objectively the correct answer. No other electoral contest has so fully and irrevocably decided the national character.

I would say 1860, but since people are already saying that, I will give runner ups

1896, 1968, 2000, 1824, and 1960

1800
1860
1864
1868
1916
1920
1932
1936
1940
1952
1964
1968
1980
1992
2004
2008
2016

these are the ones that probably had the largest roster of issues in play, and the largest roster of issues decided.

1800
1860
1864
1868
1876
1916
1932
1940
1944
1964
1968
1980
1992
2000
2008

Honorable Mention:
2016

No that's 1800. 1860 had the most important nominating convention as who the Republicans chose would have a major impact, but the South acting like spoiled brats was inevitable that year.

1992, 2000, 2008.

2000 showed that America was slowly coming apart. From Jan.-Sep. 2001, Bush II was seen as a joker, and irrelevant. From Sep. 2001 on, Rush and the conservative media laid the agenda.

I would argue that 1828 was pretty significant as well.

1789, as every election led to the next

Probably 1800 as it was the first peaceful transfer of power between parties.

1860 is obviously the answer.

I’d say 1800 for the first peaceful transfer of power between parties and 1932 for digging the country out of the depression and setting the tone for who we’d be during Ww2, those two are tied for second, currently anyway.

I genuinely think 2020 will be second. Think about it: It will either show that 2016 was a “one off” extreme reaction the angst against the establishment or it will show that America has truly lost its way and that ‘16 was no fluke. You always hear politicians say “the stakes are so high in this election” but in 2020, they are the highest they’ve ever been except for 1860.

I also believe that 1960 would have been #2 had it not been for Dallas - spring boarding off the WW2 win, the expansion success of the 50’s; 1960 would have ushsered in an era of true greatness for America both domestically and in international affairs. 1968 could have rescued America from its disasterous chaos of Vietnam & spared it from the conflicts of watergate and a turbulent 70’s, but then the Ambassador Hotel happened.

1800, and the setting of a precedent for a peaceful transfer of power.

1860 is definitely important, but I don't think there was much that could have been done at that point to avoid some sort of civil strife.

I'd say 1932 is important in that a competent President was elected, avoiding a fascist America.

I think the standard should be 'how much would history have diverged had the other guy won' as well as how close it was. 1860 is an obvious answer; I'd also make a case for 1912 and 1936, given their potential impact on US involvement in the world wars, as well as long-term social and economic policy.

All elections have potential to directly influence the course of history.

1912 didn't have that much effect. If Teddy had been President, the Lusitania incident, if it still happened, would have gotten us involved sooner, but while that would have increased Allied manpower, it wouldn't have significantly increased Allied war materiel as 1915-6 was the period we ramped up war production anyway. Maybe a year gets shaved off the length of the war and the Bolsheviks don't take power.

Given that the Cold War is a solid fifth of America's history, I'd say just that last point is a significant enough turning point. But in terms of 1912 I was talking more about the Progressive platform and the potential for the Republicans being replaced wholesale, which would be a major shift.

Decent case can be made for 1876 tbh.

1800 is the obvious answer, but it's a really good answer.

Is not that nominating convention a part of the election? It's beyond dispute that the South was going to try and break off from the Union in 1861 no matter what. Far less certain was the Northern response to secession. A stronger showing by Douglas in the Old Northwest might well have been enough to elect Democratic state governments in Illinois and Indiana — two states whose unequivocal support for the Union during the war was decisive in the fighting on the western front. Replacing Oliver Morton with Thomas Hendricks as governor of Indiana from 1861 to 1865 absolutely changes the course, if not the outcome, of the war (Lincoln himself considered Morton so important to the Union war effort that he personally appealed to General Sherman to furlough his Indiana soldiers in time for them to return home and vote for Morton's reelection). Instead, the Northwest closed ranks with the upper North to support the Republican ticket in 1860 — a result that was anything but inevitable and everything but inconsequential.

1789 or 1860.

That assumes that the Republicans win the White House in 1860.  Assume for the moment that Democrats either hadn't had their 2/3 rule or Douglas manages to get nominated in Charleston despite it. The result is a Douglas victory:
()

Alternatively, assume that Bell isn't kept off the New York ballot, allowing him to split off some of the ex-Whig vote that Lincoln got, handing the State to Douglas:
()

There are a few other scenarios that lead to the election going to Congress, but the essential thing is that the Senate was solidly Democratic, so given a choice between the running mates of Lincoln and Breckenridge, it would undoubtedly pick Lane over Hamlin.  That leaves the Republicans with the choice of either supporting Douglas in the House or leaving the Presidency vacant because the House was unable to elect a President with an ardently pro-slavery Vice President serving as Acting President.

Roll Call of the States: U.S. House Election for President in 1860 (36th Congress):
()
I'm uncertain how Tennessee and Delaware would have voted, but I'm fairly certain that Texas and California would have both been split 1-1 between Douglas and Breckenridge.  This assumes of course that the Republicans accept a Douglas presidency as the lesser of two evils, If they don't, then Lane serves as Acting President until at least December 1861 when the 37th Congress takes office.

1992. I submit the idea that the election of Bill Clinton in 1992 paved the way for Waco ->Oklahoma City, possibly Columbine and then 9/11.

If George Bush had been re-elected, I anticipate that Waco wouldn't have gone the way it did, thus no Oklahoma City. The Columbine Killers would have been nutjobs either way but the date they selected was the anniversary of Waco and Oklahoma City so who knows if that would have occurred.

Also, I believe the Bush/Quayle administration from 1993-1997 would have been much more aggressive with Al Qaeda after the 1993 World Trade Center and Embassy Bombings. With the case of 9/11, any little change to the thread would have quite possibly prevented those attacks.

Bush's re-election in 1992 would have took America on a much, much different path.

That’s some strong Kool-aid

Actually, it was intended to be the anniversary of Hitler's birthday. I haven't read anything  suggesting that Harris or Klebold cared about Waco or Oklahoma City. However, if there was a war going on at the time, they may have dropped out of school to join the military.

There's so much wrong with this post, I don't know where to begin.

That's the issue, though: Douglas could not keep the support of Southern Democrats without giving up the Freeport Doctrine wholesale, and he could not do that without loosing the support of his Northern base. Bear in mind that, to win or even deadlock the electoral college, Douglas would have needed to improve on his actual performance in Illinois and Indiana; I don't see how he could do that while simultaneously winning over the Breckinridge camp. The two-thirds rule was not what split the Democratic Party; it was the insistence of Southern Democrats on nothing less than total commitment to the unfettered expansion of slavery into the territories. That ticket simply could not carry Illinois or Indiana in 1860 (or even 1856), and popular sovereignty was no longer acceptable to the Davises and Breckinridges of the party. Douglas made his choice in 1858 when he sired the Freeport Doctrine as the antidote to Dred Scott, and as a result was nearly as unpalatable to the Southern states as Lincoln was.

The only quasi-realistic chance of preventing civil war in 1860 was to throw the election to the House and somehow elect Bell as a compromise candidate; but the math and the passions of the times combine to make that scenario, at best, a long shot.

EDIT: Come to think of it, this would make an interesting alt-history timeline on the What If board.

The ushering in of the New Deal represented a fundamental shift in Americans' relationship to the federal government and dramatically increased its powers.

1800 ... set the standard for the peaceful transition of power.

1864. Had Lincoln not won reelection, McClellan would have allowed the South to secede from the Union in order to end the war sooner. The United States would have been split in two countries, if not more since a seccession precedent was set.

Are you smoking something?

McClellan himself was never actually in favor of a negotiated peace, and explicitly repudiated the peace plank in his original letter accepting the Democratic nomination. Considering Lee's surrender came a little more than a month after the inauguration, I rather doubt a McClellan victory dramatically changes that outcome; on the other hand, the prospect of Lincoln's impending retirement likely removes the incentive for outgoing Democratic congressmen to vote for the 13th Amendment in January 1865, which certainly changes the legacy of the war.

()
wtf???

This

1860. Honorable mentions: 1912 and 1800

1860, 1896, 1916, 1940, 1944, 1960, 1976

Why were '60 and '76 so important?

Thats not true the War ended in April of 1865 , one month after Lincoln would have left office. The Confederacy was done the moment Atlanta fell.

Major change of the US history:

• Civil War
  Great Depression and WWII

So the most important elections were: 1860, 1864, 1932, 1936, 1940, and 1944.

1960 was the beginning of the Nixonian electoral map, and 1976 was the last electoral map that had existed for at least seventy-five years.

Twist: least important: 2012. Or 1996. Or 1824.

I'd throw 2004 in there as well. Even if Kerry won that election, not much, if anything, would've changed from 2005-2009 due to the GOP controlling Congress. You might say the Supreme Court, but Kerry would most likely be force to pick moderate justices to get them through a Republican Senate.

Maybe, 1932 and 1980 were more important than 1860.

Slavery would be abolished anyway. Every western country abolished slavery until the end of the 19th century.

But 1932 started a progressive era and 1980 started a conservative era that could be different if the election results were different.

Have we ever seen a president like Trump? Why don't anyone think 2016 election is significant in history?

There's no evidence so far that Trump's election has fundamentally changed our political system in any respect.

Your first scenario would just end with a later Civil War with Southern secession whenever a Republican finally won the EC.  The later it happens, of course, the more of a rout it would be for the North due to industrialization.

I think your second scenario would end with Acting President Lane and most of the Republican
delegation walking out of congress.  Then the Lincoln states (and Upstate NY) secede and declare war.  Given their extreme head start in industrialization, they would surely be able to secure independence within a year or two.  If they are willing to fight for 5+ years, they could even invade the rump US and overthrow the federal government, abolishing slavery nationwide during their occupation.  Troops from Upstate NY and New England would have to occupy NYC as a hostile territory throughout, much like the Confederacy in East Tennessee.


Would make a great alt history!

Tier 1: 1800 (no civil war), 1860, 1932

Tier 2: 1828, 1876, 1896, 1912, 1944, 1964 (ensures permanent end of Jim Crow and collapse of Southern Dem machines)

The chance of 2020 or 2024 making Tier 2 is quite high.  It is tempting to put 2008 or 2016 in Tier 2, but they kind of cancel each other out and American life has continued to be more normal than most people expected after both of them.

Tier 1: 1789, 1800, 1860, 1932

Tier 2: 1828, 1844, 1864, 1876, 1896, 1980

Tier 3: 1812, 1840, 1900, 1912, 1920, 1940, 1964, 1968, 2000

I’m surprised 1960 isn’t a more popular pick in this thread. Kennedy’s election led to his assassination, which spurned a domino effect of the escalation in Vietnam, Watergate, and the Reagan Revolution. I’ll go out on a limb and say no subsequent president after JFK would’ve ever been elected if it wasn’t for his assassination, and that the seeds of today’s political polarity were planted by his death.

This part is kind of true of every election. For example, if Dewey won in 1948, Eisenhower is most likely not elected President so there's a good chance Kennedy isn't either etc... I know for a fact Reagan wouldn't have been elected in 1980, which most likely means none of the Bushes, or Clinton, or Obama get elected either. The Country would also have gone on a much more moderate path (but still to the right of the path of 1933-1981 OTL) had Reagan not won and someone else had been elected in 1980.

I'd say 1960 was the most important election since WWII (though 1968 and 1992 were close). Had the 1960 election gone the other way, as it easily could have, the political landscape going forward would have been completely different, with the GOP playing more center stage; it is not inconceivable that Shirley Temple Black (R) might have become the first woman President.

1960 is pretty overrated actually.  Kennedy wavered and Johnson ended up doing all of the hard stuff (which he probably does during 1968-72 if Kennedy lives on). 

1800, 1860, 1864 and 1936 are obvious picks but a shout out really needs to be made for 1844. 1840 too, as it set the pattern for populist campaigning and led to the events of 1844 and after.

Good point.  There's no way the US has anywhere near as good of a 20th century without a West Coast and a Texas oil boom.  For now, it's in Tier 2, but I see 1844 only increasing in importance with time. 

You could make a similar argument for 1944.  If there is ever a large scale nuclear war and civilization survives to write about it, Harry Truman will be a household name in 1000 years.

XVIIIth century: 1800 Democracy passes the test, a different party can peacefully win the presidential election
XIXth century: 1828, Andrew Jackson creates the Democratic Party
XXth century: 1932, the foundations of a strong government are layed
XXIth century: 2008, democrats can win without the south

1968 is a good candidate too