1788*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1792*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1820*: Winner ran functionally unopposed.
1824*: Thrown to the House.
1876*: Resolved by informal agreement of Congressmen.
1960*: Election tampering in Illinois.
1972*: Fair election, but illegal interference in opposition primaries.
2000*: Recount cut short by Supreme Court.
Excluding those with election tampering by urban party machines and organized crime. If we count smoke-filled room primaries, nearly every election is an asterisk. Hard to say how much white primaries and disenfranchised minorities after the 15th amendment changed the outcome of some elections.
1. There is no evidence that election tampering changed the outcome in Illinois. Later investigations found some evidence there may have been some tampering in favor of Kennedy in Chicago, BUT the same investigations found tampering in other parts of the state in favor of Nixon. There is no evidence either was systematic or widespread enough to alter the outcome. Oh, and Kennedy would have won without Illinois anyway. Some say “But not without Texas!” But there is no evidence at all that the Texas vote was tampered with. Conspiracy theorists just like to vaguely point at LBJ and say “He was like, totally corrupt or something, and he was from Texas, therefore he rigged the election in Texas!” But again there is no evidence of this at all.
2. Nothing in the Constitution requires political parties, which are private entities, to hold primaries to decide their nominee for an election to be legitimate. To this day they could not hold primaries and choose their nominee however they wanted, and it would be perfectly legal. Until 1968 no one really had a problem with the “smoke filled rooms.” Honestly we might have been better off with them...
3. I don't think elections that went unopposed should be given an asterisk. In all those elections, the winner was only unopposed because he was so popular any challenge would have been futile. That should just be a plus for him if anything.
4. Because going to the House if there is no electoral majority is the Constitutional procedure, I don't think it's necessarily fair to say an election is illegitimate just because it went to the House. 1800 went to the House as well, and was closer to being illegitimate because if Burr had "won," it very obviously would have gone against the intent of the voters and electors. 1824 was a much messier election, and there's a case to be made that Jackson "should" have won because he had the plurality of both the popular and electoral vote. But fair or not, that's not how it works. If there really was a "corrupt bargain" between Adams and Clay, however, that would be another story. But it's never been proven there was.
5. Later unofficial recounts and studies showed that, had the 2000 recount proceeded as planned before SCOTUS intervened, Bush still would have won Florida narrowly. However, the same studies showed that had everyone's vote been counted as intended (i.e. if they weren't confused by the terrible Florida ballot and/or accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan), Gore would have won. I actually blame Florida more than the court for this one, but obviously the motives of the conservative justices were corrupt.
6. Nixon did indeed attempt to ratf--k the 1972 election, and succeeded at ratf--king Muskie and effectively eliminating him as a potential opponent. But he won by such a huge margin it probably wouldn't have mattered no matter what. That's the real irony of Watergate: Nixon didn't need to cheat to win big. His own paranoia and insecurity destroyed him.
Only the election of 1876 I think was incontrovertibly stolen. As in, the outcome was clearly and tangibly altered to defy the will of the voters beyond any real doubt and without any legal justification. It's no coincidence it's the only election in which the "loser" won a MAJORITY of the popular vote.
