Talk:1860 United States presidential election

Inconsistent Popular Vote Totals

Currently, the article is home to three (four?) different sources for the popular vote throughout the text, none of which agree with eachother. The first and most important source cited — as it's the source for the infobox results and results section — is Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, which is currently dead link. As the Internet Archive is currently down, I’m unable to verify exactly what it originally said when it was added. The website does have an active page for 1860 but it provides a different total for the national vote.

As in the infobox/results section:

Lincoln - 1,865,908

Breckinridge - 848,019

John Bell - 590,901

Stephen Douglas - 1,380,202

"Other" - 531

But in the website cited it's:

Lincoln - 1,855,993

Breckinridge - 851,844

John Bell - 590,946

Stephen Douglas - 1,381,944

"Write-in" - 369

"-" - 171

Then there's Walter Dean Burnham's Presidential ballots, 1836–1892, which is stated as the referenced for the results by state section. In the book, on page 246, the national popular vote is listed as:

Lincoln - 1,865,693

Breckinridge - 848,356

John Bell - 692,906

Stephen Douglas - 1,382,713

No mention of other votes in the table.

Finally, there's Micheal J. Dubin's United States Presidential Elections, 1788–1860: The Official Results by County and State, which is sprinkled throughout the results by state section and cited for the Liberty Party's vote in the nomination section. On page 159, the national popular vote totals are listed as:

Lincoln - 1,855,276

Breckinridge - 672,601

John Bell - 590,980

Stephen Douglas - 1,004,042

Fusion - 553,570

Union - 176

I would suggust using Dubin's vote totals exclusively because he cites his sources (something the Atlas does not), provides extensive detail with numerous notes, and is the only source to separate out the Fusion and Union votes which are already discussed separately in the article, as well as in the state election articles. Wowzers122 (talk) 03:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

The current popular vote data listed on this page are substantially different from this source,

https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/elections/1860

which is much closer to the results Eric Foner has published in his Lincoln Biography, The Fiery Trial.

I'll update the page to align with the ucsb.edu source if there are no objections. GibbsDuhem (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@GibbsDuhem: I am of the opinion that we should keep the totals given by Micheal J. Dubin's United States Presidential Elections, 1788–1860: The Official Results by County and State, which I had previously boldly updated the page to match. My concern with switching to the ucsb.edu source is that I don't see where the page is getting its information from, unlike the former. Additionally, the page seems to give all fusion ticket votes to Douglas in New York and New Jersey, and to Breckinridge in Pennsylvania. The source also doesn't list votes cast for Smith of the Liberty Party. Wowzers122 (talk) 15:18, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

I do not have a copy of Dubin's references. Have you been able to trace any of them to primary sources? I suppose these might be very difficult to source, but Foner appears to be widely regarded as a historian of merit and his book, The Fiery Trial uses numbers much closer to ucsb's. I find it confusing, as you seemingly also have. Perhaps I'll have to read Dubin's work in search of alignment with your take on this. Being that I am most certainly an amateur history buff at best, I am loath to engage in an unagreed upon revision to this article. GibbsDuhem (talk) 22:54, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Image for abraham lincoln

I open this topic bc someone reverted my edit without any explanation nor argument, see WP:EDITWAR and the Garboge6969 incident Macxiia van Cortlandt (talk) 23:09, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

The other photo is from 1860, so it should be used as it's closer to the date of the election than one from two years before. Also, reverting back to your addition can also be WP:EDITWAR violation for you. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:58, 29 April 2025 (UTC)

Agreeing with @Wowzers122, your reverts can be in violation of WP:EDITWAR for you, as you violated WP:3R or the three revert rule on April 23-24, 2025. Secondily, the image you are trying to use for a replacement for Lincoln is in violation of MOS:IMAGEQUALITY as it is a very lower quality image of Lincoln dating back to just prior to Lincoln's loss in the 1858 US Senate election against Douglas, while the image that has been used for many years (and the one I reverted back too) is one of Lincoln just after his win in this election.

Also, you mentioned about bringing up WP:NOTHERE, but yet (from what I see) your in violation of it too, as you seem to be in violation of item lists #4-7 with how youve acted towards other Wikipedians including myself who have explained to you politely on how things work. Lastly, WHAT IS THIS "Garboge6969 incident" YOU KEEP BRINGING UP. Ive been looking all over the internet for this so-called incident but yet havent found a piece of evidence about it. It feels like something you pulled out of thin air to use as an excuse for your constant rollbacks. So, if you can, PLEASE send me the evidence of this incident, if not, im assuming it didnt happen and is a made up piece of fiction. And, to end this, im quote a message you left on my talk page "if you dont then that's sad 3:" HistorianL (talk) 01:38, 30 April 2025 (UTC)