 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
217 members of theElectoral College 109 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Turnout | 16.9%[1] 23.5pp | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 Presidential election results map.Green denotes states won by Monroe/Tompkins andSalmon denotes states won by King. One elector from Delaware and three from Maryland did not vote. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes cast by each state. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Presidential elections were held in theUnited States from November 1 to December 4, 1816. TheDemocratic-Republican ticket ofsecretary of stateJames Monroe and thegovernor of New YorkDaniel D. Tompkins defeated thede factoFederalist candidate, the seniorU.S. senator fromNew YorkRufus King.[3] Although not formally nominated, King became the last Federalist presidential candidate upon receiving 34 votes from Federalistunpledged electors.[4] In the subsequent election, the Federalists carried three states but did not field their own candidate, instead supporting the incumbent Monroe, before disappearing by the end of the 1820s.[5]
The outgoingpresidentJames Madison did not seek re-election to a third consecutive term. Monroe emerged as the Democratic-Republican frontrunner and secured the party's nomination at itscongressional nominating caucus in March, narrowly defeating thesecretary of warWilliam H. Crawford. The caucus nominated Tompkins for vice president over thegovernor of PennsylvaniaSimon Snyder. The Federalists were disorganized following the end of theWar of 1812 and did not hold a caucus or formally select a candidate. King himself remained aloof from the campaign and did nothing to promote his candidacy.[6] No consensus on a vice presidential candidate emerged among the Federalist electors, who scattered their votes between four candidates.[7]
Monroe benefited from the popularity of the outgoingMadison administration and resurgent nationalism following the end of the war. Madison's 1816message to Congress endorsed an ambitious economic program that robbed the Federalists of much of their platform, most notably chartering theSecond Bank of the United States.[8] In spite of significant discontent with the caucus system and the incumbentVirginia dynasty, the Democratic-Republicans were able to avoid a major factional schism in contrast to the previous election. The Federalists meanwhile were demoralized, dogged byaccusations of treason, and ill-prepared to mount a national campaign.[9] Most took Monroe's election for granted and did not attempt to prevent it.[4] In three states where electors were chosen by thelegislature, Federalists controlled the selection process and appointed unpledged electors who voted for King.[10] Monroe carried the 16 remaining states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote, amidst widespread voter apathy and anemic turnout.[11]
(c).jpg)
Monroe followed an uncertain path to the nomination in 1816. He had feuded with Madison for most of the preceding three decades, running against him for a seat in theUnited States House of Representatives in1789 and for the presidency in1808.[12] Monroe mended relations with Madison during the War of 1812, serving as secretary of state and secretary of war in the latter's administration, and by 1816 was positioning himself as the president's natural successor. Monroe was not personally popular, and his candidacy encountered resistance from northern Democratic-Republicans and others opposed to the extension of theVirginia dynasty. During the winter of 1815–16, New York governor Daniel D. Tompkins and Monroe's successor as secretary of war William H. Crawford emerged as rivals for the presidency.[13]
Popular in his home state, Tompkins could count on the loyal support of theAnti-Clintonian faction of the New York Democratic-Republican Party, but his candidacy struggled to attract a national following. While theNew York General Assembly formally nominated him for president on February 14, his lack of name recognition, youth, and volatility were seen as serious disadvantages. By March, Tompkins had seemingly given up all hope of his nomination and instead focused his efforts on the vice presidency.[14]
Although Crawford publicly denied interest in the presidency, his candidacy quickly gathered significant support from editors and politicians ahead of the party'scongressional nominating caucus, and by February had amassed enough strength to present a serious challenge to Monroe. Despite this, Crawford remained hesitant to openly seek the nomination. Having personally assured the secretary of state that he would not be a candidate in 1816, he was reluctant to damage his standing in the party with a fight for the nomination. The continued enthusiasm for his candidacy following his public refusal in February left the war secretary unsure of how to proceed.[15]
Substantial public opinion opposed the caucus system as corrupt, undemocratic, and potentially unconstitutional.[16] While Monroe preferred to retain the caucus system, Crawford's popularity among Democratic-Republicans in Congress made calling a caucus immediately disadvantageous to Monroe's chances of gaining the nomination.[17] When finally an anonymous notice announced the date of the caucus as March 12, the meeting was attended by only 58 members, principally supporters of Crawford. The gathering was judged too small to command public credibility, and on the motion ofJeremiah Morrow ofOhio, the caucus adjourned until March 16. During the recess, Crawford instructed the U.S. senators fromGeorgiaCharles Tait andWilliam W. Bibb to withdraw his candidacy, having decided to postpone his ambitions until1824. When the caucus met again on the 16th, all but 22 Democratic-Republican members were in attendance.Henry Clay andJohn W. Taylor again moved that it was "inexpedient" to nominate a presidential candidate, but were voted down; the caucus then nominated Monroe by a vote of 65 to 54.[18]
Monroe owed his majority over Crawford to the 11 Virginians in attendance, who supplied the margin of victory.[18] Crawford received the votes of theNew York,New Jersey, Georgia, andKentucky delegations, notwithstanding their candidate's withdrawal. Of the 22 Democratic-Republican members who did not attend the caucus, the majority were Crawfordites who absented themselves at Crawford's request to allow Monroe's nomination.[19] The narrow margin between the candidates and the presumed sympathies of the 22 absent members encouraged the belief that "Crawford would certainly have been nominated had he made even the slighted effort on his behalf."[20]
In the event of his defeat, Crawford had instructed Tait and Bibb to issue a statement that he had beendrafted without his consent; this the senators neglected to do. Crawford would subsequently attribute Monroe's lack of support for his candidacy in 1824 to this embarrassment.[21]
| Candidate | 1st |
|---|---|
| James Monroe | 65 |
| William H. Crawford | 54 |
 | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| James Monroe | Daniel D. Tompkins | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| for President | for Vice President | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |  | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| 7th U.S. Secretary of State (1811–17) | 4th Governor of New York (1807–17) | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Candidates in this section are sorted by vote count in the congressional nominating caucus | ||||||||
| William H. Crawford | Daniel D. Tompkins | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
.jpg) | | |||||||
| U.S. secretary of War (1815–16) | 4thgovernor of New York (1807–17) | |||||||
| LN: March 16, 1816 54 votes | W: March 13, 1816 0 votes | |||||||
| [18] | [14] | |||||||
Maneuvering for the vice presidency began in the weeks preceding the caucus, when the identity of the presidential candidate was still an open question. Sensing his presidential chances lagging, Tompkins advertised his willingness to accept the vice presidency under either Monroe or Crawford.[22] Several others were considered available candidates, including the governor of Pennsylvania Simon Snyder and thespeaker of the U.S. House of RepresentativesHenry Clay of Kentucky.[23] Snyder's hopes were dashed when he failed to secure the formal endorsement of the Pennsylvania congressional delegation.[24] It was widely assumed that Crawford and Tompkins each sought to recruit the other for the second place on the ticket. The New York delegation floated a Tompkins–Crawford ticket that could unite all foes of the Virginia dynasty; when this failed, they approached Clay, to no avail.[25] Tompkins emerged as the overwhelming favorite when the caucus met on March 16 and was nominated by a large majority, while Snyder finished a distant second. Passed over for the presidency, the New Yorker substantially exceeded Monroe's margin over Crawford, winning the votes of nearly three quarters of the members in attendance.[26]
| Candidate | 1st |
|---|---|
| Daniel D. Tompkins | 85 |
| Simon Snyder | 30 |
The Federalist Party entered the election in disarray. Followingpeace with Britain in 1815, "the strength that the Federalists had shown in the middle states during the war years melted away."[27] Disconnected state parties lacked a unifying national organization capable of fielding candidates or mounting a national campaign. Where Federalists were more than a negligible presence, charges of disloyalty hounded the party in the wake of theHartford Convention.[28] This enfeebled party apparatus proved incapable of even selecting a candidate to oppose Monroe: although different names were mentioned in hearsay reports and private correspondence, no caucus was ever held, no consensus among state parties or the Federalist press emerged, and as late as December it remained unclear for whom (if anyone) the Federalist electors fromConnecticut,Delaware,Maryland, andMassachusetts would vote.[4]
If the Federalists were to choose a candidate, King appeared by far the likeliest possibility. A respected senator and former delegate to theConstitutional Convention who had twice been the party's vice presidential candidate in1804 and1808, by 1816 King was the only individual capable of uniting the party's remaining supporters.[4] In February, theNew York Evening Post predicted that King and the formerSpeaker of the U.S. House of RepresentativesLangdon Cheves would be the nominees of the Federalist caucus for president and vice president. However, in the interim, the New York Federalist Party nominated King for governor in theApril 1816 election after the party's original candidate,William W. Van Ness, withdrew. King lost the election to Tompkins, and although the Democratic-Republican majority was not overwhelming, the defeat ended any hope of King's nomination for president.[29] While some Federalists suggested the former U.S. senator from MarylandJohn Eager Howard or even Crawford as possible candidates, no serious movement to nominate either man ever materialized.[4] The Federalists thus entered the fall campaign without a ticket, and with most party leaders resigned to an inevitable Democratic-Republican victory.[30]
| Candidates in this section are sorted by number of electoral votes for president and then alphabetically by last name | ||||||||
| Rufus King | William H. Crawford | John E. Howard | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
_-_Google_Art_Project.jpg) | |  | ||||||
| U.S. senator fromNew York (1813–25) | U.S. secretary of War (1815–17) | U.S. senator fromMaryland (1796–1803) | ||||||
| NN | W: March 16, 1816 | DNR | ||||||
| [4] | [4][18] | [4] | ||||||
The failure of the Federalist Party to nominate a ticket effectively conceded the election to Monroe. InNew Jersey,Ohio,Rhode Island,Vermont, and in every state south of thePotomac River, the Federalists did not seriously contest the election.[4] Federalist unpledged electors ran in several states, and inPennsylvania, Monroe's opponents fielded an Independent ticket supported by disaffected Democratic-Republicans and Federalists.[31] Lacking a candidate, the opposition all but ignored the presidential race and instead reserved their energies for state and local elections in which the remnants of regional Federalist strength might still be salvaged.[32] In New York andNew Hampshire, where a real effort was made to defeat the Democratic-Republican ticket, the Federalist campaign was distracted and uncoordinated.[4] So great was the sense of inevitability surrounding Monroe's election that most public speculation focused on the composition of his incomingcabinet.[33]
Rufus King shared the view of nearly all observers who considered Monroe's election a foregone conclusion. He took no part in the campaign and said or did nothing to indicate that he considered himself a candidate. Following his gubernatorial defeat, King encouraged his colleagues to accept Monroe's election and suggested the Federalist Party should disband. Nothing in King's private correspondence suggests his candidacy for president; in a letter toChristopher Gore dated November 5, he referred to Monroe as running unopposed.[34] The partisan press did not consider King a candidate. The Democratic-RepublicanVermont Gazette laughed that Connecticut's Federalist electors "probably do not know for whom they shall vote themselves!"[35] As late as December 3, the FederalistBoston Daily Advertiser admitted it did not know for whom the state's Federalist electors would vote. King would not learn of his selection by 34 Federalist electors until after the electoral colleges had already met.[36]
The caucus system was a major issue in the campaign. A gathering of members of Congress had selected the Democratic-Republican national ticket in every consecutive election since 1796.[37] Electoral candidates and candidates for state office were commonly chosen by similar gatherings of state legislators.[38] By design, the caucus system gave elected lawmakers substantial influence over the choice of party nominees for state and national office. This feature attracted criticism from Federalists and anti-caucus Democratic-Republicans who argued that the practice of caucus nominations undermined democratic elections, gave undue influence to career officeholders, and potentially violated the constitutionalseparation of powers.[39] With no organized opposition to Monroe, they noted that the election effectively had been decided by members of Congress and alleged that the constitutional election process had been subverted. The perception that the caucus had forced its choice upon the nation irrespective of the opinions of most voters was particularly salient. "A president is to be made thinks I," went one editorial, "but what shall we call the process? Not an election! for the people have nothing to do with it and the electors have nothing to do with it. One half of the republicans and all the federalists are against the man; but the caucus have said 'it shall be so,' and it must be so."[40] The Federalist press made a significant effort to capitalize on opposition to the caucus.[16] ThePortland Gazette suggested that voters shouldboycott the election in protest against "this manifest violation of one the most important provisions of the national Charter."[41] Anti-caucus feeling, which smoldered all through the campaign, would continue to mount over the course of the next decade, and became a major issue in the election of 1824.[42]
Opposition to the Virginia dynasty was a significant theme in the contest for the Democratic-Republican nomination that carried over into the general election.[43] Three of the four previous presidents had been Virginians; the only president fromNew England,John Adams, served a single term from 1797 to 1801. Northern Democratic-Republicans hoped the party's caucus would nominate a candidate from their section and fixed their hopes on Tompkins, who ultimately received the vice presidency; the implied inference that a New Yorker was fit only to playsecond fiddle to a Virginian was a source of resentment in the North.[44] In the aftermath of the caucus, the Federalist press attempted to keep the issue alive.[43] In June, theCharlestown Courier reprinted an anonymous pamphlet, theExposition of the Motives for Opposing the Nomination of Mr. Monroe for the Office of President of the United States, purportedly the work of the "fifty-four Democrats" who had voted to nominate Crawford in the caucus. Probably written byJohn Armstrong Jr., the piece alleged that party leaders had ruthlessly blocked the advancement of Monroe's rivals in order to continue the line of Virginian presidents, irrespective of Monroe's evident unfitness for office. Several Federalist editors suggested adopting Crawford as the party's candidate for president, but party leaders ultimately failed to agree upon this strategy.[45]
Monroe won the election decisively, carrying 33 of the 39 constituencies representing 183 electoral votes. He received a majority of the electoral votes from 16 states, including every state where electors were chosen by popular vote. Three states where electors were chosen by the legislature—Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts—and three popular election districts in Maryland chose upledged Federalist electors, representing 38 electoral votes. Four Federalist electors (the three Maryland Federalists and one elector from Delaware) did not vote; the remaining 34 voted for Rufus King.[3]
There was no agreement among the Federalists as to a vice presidential candidate. Twenty-two electors voted for Howard, all from Massachusetts; Connecticut's electors split their votes between the former U.S. senator from PennsylvaniaJames Ross (5) and thechief justice of the United StatesJohn Marshall (4), while three Delaware electors voted for the U.S. senator from MarylandRobert Goodloe Harper. Tompkins received the votes of all 183 Democratic-Republican electors.[46]
Indiana entered the Union as the nineteenth state on December 11, 1816. When Congress met to count the electoral votes on February 22, 1817, John W. Taylor, the member fromNew York's 11th congressional district, objected to counting Indiana's electoral votes on the grounds that it had not been a state at the time of the meeting of the electoral colleges. Daniel Cady, representingNew York's 14th congressional district, andWilliam Hendricks, the newly-elected member fromIndiana, countered that Indiana's representatives to Congress had been seated with the acceptance of the state'sconstitution, and that it was therefore entitled to participate in the election. Opinion in the House was overwhelmingly in favor of counting Indiana's votes. On the motion ofSamuel D. Ingham, the question of the legality of Indiana's votes was postponed indefinitely, and the final electoral count was read with Indiana's votes included.[47]
| Presidential candidate | Party | Home state | Popular vote(a)(b) | Electoral vote(c) | Running mate | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Count | Percentage | Vice-presidential candidate | Home state | Electoral vote(c) | ||||
| James Monroe | Democratic-Republican | Virginia | 76,752 | 68.68% | 183 | Daniel D. Tompkins | New York | 183 |
| Rufus King | Federalist | New York | (d) | (d) | 34 | John E. Howard | Maryland | 22 |
| James Ross | Pennsylvania | 5 | ||||||
| John Marshall | Virginia | 4 | ||||||
| Robert Goodloe Harper | Maryland | 3 | ||||||
| Unpledged electors | Democratic-Republican | (n/a) | 17,597 | 15.74% | — | (n/a) | (n/a) | — |
| Unpledged electors | Federalist | (n/a) | 17,300 | 15.48% | —(e) | (n/a) | (n/a) | —(e) |
| Other | 99 | 0.09% | — | Other | — | |||
| Total | 111,748 | 100% | 217 | 217 | ||||
| Needed to win | 109 | 109 | ||||||
Source (Popular Vote):A New Nation Votes: American Election Returns 1787-1825[48]
| Monroe | 68.7% | |||
| Unpledged electors (DR) | 15.7% | |||
| Unpledged electors (F) | 15.4% | |||
| Others | 0.1% | |||
| Monroe | 84.3% | |||
| King | 15.7% | |||
| Tompkins | 84.3% | |||
| Howard | 10.1% | |||
| Ross | 2.3% | |||
| Marshall | 1.8% | |||
| Harper | 1.4% | |||
Nineteenth century election laws required voters to vote directly for members of the Electoral College rather than for president. This sometimes resulted in small differences in the number of votes cast for electors pledged to the same presidential candidate if some voters did not vote for all the electors nominated by a party, or if one or several electorsran on multiple tickets.[49] In most cases, this table compares the results for the most popular elector pledged to each ticket. For the single-member electoral districts in Maryland, all votes for electors pledged to one party or nominee are counted in cases where multiple electors were pledged to the same presidential candidate. In Pennsylvania, four electors ran on both the Democratic-Republican and the Independent ticket and were elected without opposition; this table counts the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Democratic-Republican ticket (William Gilliland) for Monroe, and the result for the most popular elector to run exclusively on the Independent ticket (Andrew Gregg) for the Others. Returns from Tennessee and one Kentucky district appear to have been lost.
| State | Electoral votes | James Monroe Democratic-Republican | Unpledged electors[c] Federalist | Others | Margin | Total | Citation | |||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | Electoral votes | No. | % | ||||
| Connecticut | 9 | * | — | * | 9 | * | — | * | — | [3][50] | ||||
| Delaware | 4 | * | — | * | 4[d] | * | — | * | — | [3][51] | ||||
| Georgia | 8 | * | 8 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [3] | ||||
| Indiana | 3 | * | 3 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [3][52] | ||||
| Kentucky–1[e] | 4 | ** | 4 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [53][54] | ||||
| Kentucky–2 | 4 | 1,508 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | 1,508 | 100.0 | 1,508 | [53][55] | ||
| Kentucky–3 | 4 | 356 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | 356 | 100.0 | 356 | [53][56] | ||
| Louisiana | 3 | * | 3 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [53][57] | ||||
| Maryland–1 | 1 | 2 | 0.74 | — | 270 | 99.26 | 1[f] | — | — | 268 | 98.52 | 272 | [58] | |
| Maryland–2 | 1 | 523 | 73.7 | 1 | 184 | 25.9 | — | 3 | 0.4 | — | 339 | 47.8 | 710 | [59] |
| Maryland–3 | 2 | 1,440 | 99.0 | 2 | 13 | 0.9 | — | 2 | 0.1 | — | 1,427 | 98.1 | 1,455 | [60] |
| Maryland–4 | 2 | 1,855 | 95.6 | 2 | — | — | 85 | 4.4 | — | 1,722 | 91.4 | 1,938 | [53][61] | |
| Maryland–5 | 1 | 693 | 100.0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 693 | 100.0 | 693 | [53][62] | ||
| Maryland–6 | 1 | 938 | 67.9 | 1 | 435 | 31.5 | — | 9 | 0.6 | — | 503 | 36.4 | 1,382 | [53][63] |
| Maryland–7 | 1 | 750 | 100.0 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 750 | 100.0 | 750 | [64] | ||
| Maryland–8 | 1 | 1,272 | 48.9 | — | 1,338 | 51.1 | 1[f] | — | — | -56 | -2.2 | 2,610 | [53][65] | |
| Maryland–9 | 1 | 30 | 3.3 | — | 886 | 96.7 | 1[f] | — | — | -856 | -93.4 | 916 | [66] | |
| Massachusetts | 22 | * | — | * | 22 | * | — | * | — | [53][67] | ||||
| New Hampshire | 8 | 15,225 | 53.3 | 8 | 13,338 | 46.7 | — | — | — | 1,887 | 6.6 | 28,563 | [68] | |
| New Jersey | 8 | 5,441 | 99.0 | 8 | 54 | 1.0 | — | — | — | 5,387 | 98.0 | 5,495 | [53][69] | |
| New York | 29 | * | 29 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [53][70] | ||||
| North Carolina | 15 | 9,549 | 98.4 | 15 | 158 | 1.6 | — | — | — | 9,391 | 96.7 | 9,707 | [53][71] | |
| Ohio | 8 | 3,326 | 84.9 | 8 | 593 | 15.1 | — | — | — | 2,733 | 69.7 | 3,919 | [53][72] | |
| Pennsylvania | 25 | 25,749 | 59.4 | 25 | 27 | 0.1 | — | 17,597 | 40.6 | — | 8,152 | 18.8 | 43,346 | [73] |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 1,236 | 100.0 | 4 | — | — | — | — | 1,236 | 100.0 | 1,236 | [74][75] | ||
| South Carolina | 11 | * | 11 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [74][76] | ||||
| Tennessee–1[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74][77] | ||||
| Tennessee–2[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74] | ||||
| Tennessee–3[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74] | ||||
| Tennessee–4[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74][78] | ||||
| Tennessee–5[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74] | ||||
| Tennessee–6[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74][79] | ||||
| Tennessee–7[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74] | ||||
| Tennessee–8[e] | 1 | ** | 1 | ** | — | ** | — | ** | ** | [74] | ||||
| Vermont | 8 | * | 8 | * | — | * | — | * | — | [74] | ||||
| Virginia | 25 | 6,859 | 99.9 | 25 | 4 | 0.1 | — | — | — | 6,855 | 99.8 | — | [74][80] | |
| TOTALS | 221 | 76,752 | 68.7 | 183 | 17,300 | 15.5 | 38 | 17,696 | 15.8 | 0 | 59,489 | 53.2 | 111,748 | |
Districts where the margin of victory was less than 5 percentage points:
States where the margin of victory was less than 10 percentage points:
| State | Electoral votes | For President | For Vice President | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JMTooltip James Monroe | RKTooltip Rufus King | B | DTTooltip Daniel D. Tompkins | JHTooltip John Eager Howard | JRTooltip James Ross (Pennsylvania politician) | JMTooltip John Marshall | RHTooltip Robert Goodloe Harper | B | |||
| Connecticut | 9 | — | 9 | — | — | — | 5 | 4 | — | — | |
| Delaware | 4 | — | 3 | 1 | — | — | — | — | 3 | 1 | |
| Georgia | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Indiana | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Kentucky | 12 | 12 | — | — | 12 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Louisiana | 3 | 3 | — | — | 3 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Maryland | 11 | 8 | — | 3 | 8 | — | — | — | — | 3 | |
| Massachusetts | 22 | — | 22 | — | — | 22 | — | — | — | — | |
| New Hampshire | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| New Jersey | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| New York | 29 | 29 | — | — | 29 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| North Carolina | 15 | 15 | — | — | 15 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Ohio | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Pennsylvania | 25 | 25 | — | — | 25 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Rhode Island | 4 | 4 | — | — | 4 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| South Carolina | 11 | 11 | — | — | 11 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Tennessee | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Vermont | 8 | 8 | — | — | 8 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| Virginia | 25 | 25 | — | — | 25 | — | — | — | — | — | |
| TOTAL | 221 | 183 | 34 | 4 | 183 | 22 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 4 | |
| TO WIN | 109 | 109 | |||||||||
| Method of choosing electors | State(s) |
|---|---|
| Electors are chosen by the state legislature | |
| Electors are chosen by voters in a statewide election | |
| Electors are chosen by voters from single- or multi-member districts |
.jpg)
_-_Google_Art_Project_(3x4_cropped).jpg)
