Maine in 1836?

[Хahar 🤔]

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1836data.html

A write-in recieved 1,112 votes. Can someone enlighten me on who that would be?

[Alcon]

A write-in recieved 1,112 votes. Can someone enlighten me on who that would be?

Probably not. 

Also a good question: how were there 50,153 ballots in North Carolina, and only one of them had a write-in?  Did someone write-in their own write-in option?

[Хahar 🤔]

A write-in recieved 1,112 votes. Can someone enlighten me on who that would be?

Probably not. 

Also a good question: how were there 50,153 ballots in North Carolina, and only one of them had a write-in?  Did someone write-in their own write-in option?

The write-in data for that election is generally weird.

[Daniel Adams]

Perhaps there is some error in the data. Michael Dubin's United States Presidential Elections 1788-1860 reports no write-in votes for Maine in 1836, and gives somewhat different returns (Van Buren 22,890 votes and Harrison 15,200 votes). He cites manuscript returns at the State Archives as his source.

[jimrtex]

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1836data.html

A write-in recieved 1,112 votes. Can someone enlighten me on who that would be?

Dave's numbers match those of CQ's Presidential Elections Since 1789, which in turn are based on research by the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research (ICPR) - now ICPSR. 

In the case of 1836, the 1,112 votes are classified as "unknown" rather than "write-in".  CQ says, "'Unknown' is used where ICPR sources indicated votes but neither candidate nor a party".

Prior to about 1900, all elections in the USA were write-in, though parties often provided pre-printed ballots with their candidates' names already written in.  The Australian ballot, where the government prints the names of all candidates on a ballot, which is then given to the voter to mark in secret, replaced the previous system, though voters could continue to write in the name of other candidates.

Before adoption of the Australian ballot, there was often no formal system of nomination.  If someone wanted to run for election he and his party would simply encourage voters to write-in the name of the candidate.  Whether votes for all persons receiving votes might depend on the diligence of election officials, or the persons actively running for office.

Further, elector candidates often ran as individuals on a slate.  Even where parties provided pre-printed ballots, a voter could cross off electors that he disfavored.  Typically, what is reported as votes for a presidential candidate, is the votes received by the leading candidate of his elector slate.  Van Buren most likely did not receive 22,825 votes, but rather the leading Democrat elector receive 22,825 votes, while the other 9 elector candidates received somewhat less.  This system of reporting the leading candidate of slate works less well when there are persons who are not members of a slate - or perhaps were alternate members of a slate.  If you had 100 voters voting for 10 random elector candidates, it would total close to 1000 votes which could not be credited to a slate.

Since the 1836 election was the first presidential election contested by the Whigs, and they ran 3 different candidates in different states, it is quite possible that there were incomplete alternate slates in some states.  If there is an identifiable person associated with the 1152 votes, I would guess Daniel Webster, who was originally elected as representative from New Hampshire prior to moving to Boston where he later became a Representative, Senator, and Secretary of State for Harrison, Tyler, and Fillmore.  He had worked for a short while in Maine, was known for his representation as lawyer for Dartmouth in neighboring New Hampshire, and was the Whig candidate in Massachusetts.

[Хahar 🤔]

https://uselectionatlas.org/USPRESIDENT/GENERAL/pe1836data.html

A write-in recieved 1,112 votes. Can someone enlighten me on who that would be?

Dave's numbers match those of CQ's Presidential Elections Since 1789, which in turn are based on research by the Inter-University Consortium for Political Research (ICPR) - now ICPSR. 

In the case of 1836, the 1,112 votes are classified as "unknown" rather than "write-in".  CQ says, "'Unknown' is used where ICPR sources indicated votes but neither candidate nor a party".

Prior to about 1900, all elections in the USA were write-in, though parties often provided pre-printed ballots with their candidates' names already written in.  The Australian ballot, where the government prints the names of all candidates on a ballot, which is then given to the voter to mark in secret, replaced the previous system, though voters could continue to write in the name of other candidates.

Before adoption of the Australian ballot, there was often no formal system of nomination.  If someone wanted to run for election he and his party would simply encourage voters to write-in the name of the candidate.  Whether votes for all persons receiving votes might depend on the diligence of election officials, or the persons actively running for office.

Further, elector candidates often ran as individuals on a slate.  Even where parties provided pre-printed ballots, a voter could cross off electors that he disfavored.  Typically, what is reported as votes for a presidential candidate, is the votes received by the leading candidate of his elector slate.  Van Buren most likely did not receive 22,825 votes, but rather the leading Democrat elector receive 22,825 votes, while the other 9 elector candidates received somewhat less.  This system of reporting the leading candidate of slate works less well when there are persons who are not members of a slate - or perhaps were alternate members of a slate.  If you had 100 voters voting for 10 random elector candidates, it would total close to 1000 votes which could not be credited to a slate.

Since the 1836 election was the first presidential election contested by the Whigs, and they ran 3 different candidates in different states, it is quite possible that there were incomplete alternate slates in some states.  If there is an identifiable person associated with the 1152 votes, I would guess Daniel Webster, who was originally elected as representative from New Hampshire prior to moving to Boston where he later became a Representative, Senator, and Secretary of State for Harrison, Tyler, and Fillmore.  He had worked for a short while in Maine, was known for his representation as lawyer for Dartmouth in neighboring New Hampshire, and was the Whig candidate in Massachusetts.

Ah, I see. Thank you.