Opinion of Andrew Jackson

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Though in the end it made little difference since a peace treaty was signed, would you have preferred the U.S. lose the Battle of New Orleans? Battle of N.O. outweighs nearly everything else.

Jackson did not win the Battle of New Orleans, Cochrane lost it.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Total badass, but the push to destroy the national bank and replace it with easy money pet banks, as well as the whole genocide thing, puts him as a rather splendid example of a HP.

How could a leftist have supported the Second U.S. Bank?

From a leftist perspective, the Bank of the United States was preferable to the cronyism of the pet banks.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The breakthrough for mass democracy that occurred in his Presidency ...

What does that mean?

His election was the first to allow popular vote.

Huh? 

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage.  Also starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote. (South Carolina continued to have its legislature select the electors in every presidential election thru the one of 1861. (Does anyone have a link to the results for the Confederate Presidential election of 1861?) And Colorado's legislature chose its 3 electors in 1876.)

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

The Jacksonian era of politics coincided by and large with the removal of property qualifications on the vote, leading to an era of universal white male suffrage. 

Yes I know that.  But how does that relate to an opinion of Andrew Jackson?

The first comment I responded referred to a change that "occurred in his Presidency".   The various voting changes during that era were not done by his administration; they were done at the state level and some states had made the changes before he was president.  As you pointed out, "starting with the election of 1828, only at most one state did not choose its electors via the popular vote" -- the election of 1828 took place before his presidency.

But the changes in the electoral system between 1824 and 1828 were to some degree due to the belief that the Eastern elites had conspired to rob Jackson of the Presidency in 1824.  While it easily could have been someone else, Jackson was the catalyst for those changes happening more rapidly than otherwise would have been the case.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

But the changes in the electoral system between 1824 and 1828 were to some degree due to the belief that the Eastern elites had conspired to rob Jackson of the Presidency in 1824.  While it easily could have been someone else, Jackson was the catalyst for those changes happening more rapidly than otherwise would have been the case.

Baloney.

I don't dispute that Jackson benefited from the shift to universal white male suffrage, but the reaction to the election of 1824 is what killed off having State legislatures select electors without submitting the result to the people. In the elections of 1824 and earlier, a significant fraction of the electors were chosen by the State legislators.  Afterward, the sole exception was South Carolina, where the General Assembly was able to maintain a monopoly on power.