Which of these elections were stolen?

[Yelnoc]

1824 and 1876 were the only ones truly stolen.  2000, in my opinion, was not stolen by Bush so much as handed to him by the courts.  The others were just close elections.

[Thomas D]

1876, and I think 1960.

[Username MechaRFK]

1876, and I think 1960.

Why 1960?

[Thomas D]

1876, and I think 1960.

Why 1960?

If you look back there were a lot of odd elections in Texas and Illinois back then. You add in the mob and what a crook JFK's dad was, it wouldn't shock me to find out that election was stolen.

[True Federalist]

How the heck do the totals for 1876 and NOTA not equal the number of votes.   It was the most clearly stolen election in U.S. history.  If 1876 wasn't stolen, none of them were.

[Nagas]

1876 was evidently stolen. Hayes did not win 3 states of the Democratic solid south, they were handed to him via the corrupt bargain.

 1960 and 2000 are debatable.

[Nym90]

To everybody voting 2000......

You may hate the facts, and maybe the photo-shopping of fake headlines in Michael Moore films has brainwashed you.. but...

The New York Times (essentially the media arm of the Democratic party) spent millions of dollars to recount every single ballot in Florida.. The looked at every single overvote, undervote, illegal vote..

With all their heart and soul they wanted it to be true, but it just wasn't... Bush actually did win Florida...

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/11/12/politics/12VOTE.html

Acomprehensive review of the uncounted Florida ballots from last year's presidential election reveals that George W. Bush would have won even if the United States Supreme Court had allowed the statewide manual recount of the votes that the Florida Supreme Court had ordered to go forward.

Contrary to what many partisans of former Vice President Al Gore have charged, the United States Supreme Court did not award an election to Mr. Bush that otherwise would have been won by Mr. Gore. A close examination of the ballots found that Mr. Bush would have retained a slender margin over Mr. Gore if the Florida court's order to recount more than 43,000 ballots had not been reversed by the United States Supreme Court.

Even under the strategy that Mr. Gore pursued at the beginning of the Florida standoff — filing suit to force hand recounts in four predominantly Democratic counties — Mr. Bush would have kept his lead, according to the ballot review conducted for a consortium of news organizations.

Um, except the very next few paragraphs, which for some reason you failed to quote, give the rest of the story....

"But the consortium, looking at a broader group of rejected ballots than those covered in the court decisions, 175,010 in all, found that Mr. Gore might have won if the courts had ordered a full statewide recount of all the rejected ballots. This also assumes that county canvassing boards would have reached the same conclusions about the disputed ballots that the consortium's independent observers did. The findings indicate that Mr. Gore might have eked out a victory if he had pursued in court a course like the one he publicly advocated when he called on the state to "count all the votes."

In addition, the review found statistical support for the complaints of many voters, particularly elderly Democrats in Palm Beach County, who said in interviews after the election that confusing ballot designs may have led them to spoil their ballots by voting for more than one candidate.

More than 113,000 voters cast ballots for two or more presidential candidates. Of those, 75,000 chose Mr. Gore and a minor candidate; 29,000 chose Mr. Bush and a minor candidate. Because there was no clear indication of what the voters intended, those numbers were not included in the consortium's final tabulations."

[Nym90]

So, I guess if by "stolen" you mean that the Supreme Court won the election for Bush, then technically it was not stolen; Gore's legal strategy was pretty crappy and thus he still would have lost even if he had gotten the count he wanted.

But the evidence is pretty clear that a statewide manual recount of votes in Florida would have given the victory to Gore. That to me is sufficient to meet the definition of "stolen" as the will of the people of the state was clearly not reflected in the results.

[Indy Prez]

1876 was outright stolen by the GOP when Grant admitted Colorado into the Union and appointed the state's electors, otherwise it would have been D 184-182 R and Sammy T in the White House.

1824 was stolen if you consider the Constitution and the electoral process it outlines to be meaningless (the House rules).

2000 was stolen by a power-hungry GOP who felt entitled to the White House after eight years controlling congress.

2004 was not stolen, although the previous statement woud argue the opposite :/

1960 wasn't stolen, although both parties committed voter fraud in Illinois (Dems) and Texas (GOP), kennedy still would have won.

[GPORTER]

1876 was outright stolen by the GOP when Grant admitted Colorado into the Union and appointed the state's electors, otherwise it would have been D 184-182 R and Sammy T in the White House.

1824 was stolen if you consider the Constitution and the electoral process it outlines to be meaningless (the House rules).

2000 was stolen by a power-hungry GOP who felt entitled to the White House after eight years controlling congress.

2004 was not stolen, although the previous statement woud argue the opposite :/

1960 wasn't stolen, although both parties committed voter fraud in Illinois (Dems) and Texas (GOP), kennedy still would have won.

Well, your an independent, but its obvious which way you lean.

[Skill and Chance]

How the heck do the totals for 1876 and NOTA not equal the number of votes.   It was the most clearly stolen election in U.S. history.  If 1876 wasn't stolen, none of them were.

The Democrats had a vote fraud operation going that likely "stole" several Southern states for them.  Tilden's PV win wasn't exactly fair and square. 

[Proud Lieberal from Northeast]

1824 wasn't stolen. No candidate won a required number of electoral votes to get elected and, constitutionally, House of Representatives had to make a final decision.

[tb78]

1876 and 1824 had screwed up outcomes, but the rest are not, the guy who was destined to win won. Get over it folks, life's tough sometimes

[MIKESOWELL]

1824 possibly, 1876 definitely, 1960 possibly, and 2000 probably. The rest, in my opinion, were won fair and square.

[Californian Tony]

1876 and 1824 had screwed up outcomes, but the rest are not, the guy who was destined to win won. Get over it folks, life's tough sometimes

Nobody is "destined to win" (as long as you believe in free will).

[freefair]

2000 was stolen- A whole half percentage point between the two candidates PV ,  and Florida could have actually gone for Gore anyway, the recount was unfairly halted in a morally corrupt Supreme court descision.

[Sasquatch]

2000

[tb78]

2000 was stolen- A whole half percentage point between the two candidates PV ,  and Florida could have actually gone for Gore anyway, the recount was unfairly halted in a morally corrupt Supreme court descision.

I agree the recount was handled wrong, the state should have had a do over election day with the 4 main candidates and let the results come out that way.

[GPORTER]

2000 was stolen- A whole half percentage point between the two candidates PV ,  and Florida could have actually gone for Gore anyway, the recount was unfairly halted in a morally corrupt Supreme court descision.

And for democrats, it the supreme court votes that health care is unconstitutional, then that will be a "morally corrupt" Supreme court decision too. Republicans have lost elections too, yet we don't jump to calling them "morally corrupt."

[I'm JewCon in name only.]

The one with the Unicorn Nominee winning EVs

[OC]

I'm sure because W Bush had his father's name and 6/9 SCrt justices were Reagan or his dad's, which his father served under, added an extra partisan component to the 2000 election being stolen.