In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
and then died in 1799.

Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
president John Adams,how might the further elections
have been affected?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04 AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
> and then died in 1799.
>
> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
> president John Adams,how might the further elections
> have been affected?
>
For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the VP would step up.

Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023
14:43:26 -0800 (PST) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04?AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
>> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
>> and then died in 1799.
>>
>> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
>> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
>> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
>> president John Adams,how might the further elections
>> have been affected?
>>
>For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the VP would step up.

For a second The Precedent would be set that the President served
until he died.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023
> 14:43:26 -0800 (PST) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04?AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
>>> and then died in 1799.
>>>
>>> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
>>> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
>>> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
>>> president John Adams,how might the further elections
>>> have been affected?
>>>
>>For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have
>> arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the
>> VP would step up.

Would the 12th Amendment change or not exist?

> For a second The Precedent would be set that the President served
> until he died.

Are you thinking that Adams could have kept winning every four years
until 1826?

-=-=-
The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

On Monday, November 13, 2023 at 8:52:49 AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > Graham Truesdale <graham.t...ATgmail.com> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023
> > 14:43:26 -0800 (PST) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04?AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> >>> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
> >>> and then died in 1799.
> >>>
> >>> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
> >>> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
> >>> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
> >>> president John Adams,how might the further elections
> >>> have been affected?
> >>>
> >>For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have
> >> arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the
> >> VP would step up.
> Would the 12th Amendment change or not exist?
>
The OP is assuming that Washington and Adams will be re-elected as Prez and Veep in *1796. Washington is pretty well certain. However in OTL Adams was only 3 electoral votes ahead of Jefferson - 71 to 68. Would Adams have done better or worse as Washington's running-mate?

Another what-if is that, in 1796, Adams gets two fewer electoral votes than he did in OTL. Let's say that the 11 North Carolina electors who voted for Jefferson persuade the one who voted for Adams to join them, and the 14 Pennsylvania electors who voted for Jefferson do likewise. Or else the 20 Virginia electors who voted for Jefferson do likewise. (I am assuming that nobody voted for both). So if Adams gets 69 EV and Jefferson gets 70, then we have President Jefferson in 1797. Or maybe one of the Adams voters cannot stand Jefferson, and is persuaded to vote for e.g. Burr rather than Jefferson. (I realise that this might involve faithless electors). So Adams and Jefferson tie on 69, and the election is thrown into the House of the lame-duck 4th Congress. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_United_States_Congress#Party_summary suggests that the Democratic-Republicans controlled it. But of course a candidate needs a majority of 15 states (i.e. 8), not of congresscritturs. AFAICS, the Federalists held Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, and Rhode Island. The Democratic-Republicans held North Carolina, South Carolina, Delaware, Georgia, Kentucky, New York, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Maryland and Vermont were tied. So if everybody toes the party line, Jefferson gets in.

The late David Tenner would no doubt have had an authoritative opinion on both of the above points. In his absence, does anyone wish to speculate?
>
> > For a second The Precedent would be set that the President served
> > until he died.
> Are you thinking that Adams could have kept winning every four years
> until 1826?
> -=-=-
> The World Trade Center towers MUST rise again,
> at least as tall as before...or terror has triumphed.

Louis Epstein <le@main.lekno.ws> on Mon, 13 Nov 2023 08:52:47 -0000
(UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>pyotr filipivich <phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> Graham Truesdale <graham.truesdale@gmail.com> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023
>> 14:43:26 -0800 (PST) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
>>>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04?AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
>>>> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
>>>> and then died in 1799.
>>>>
>>>> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
>>>> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
>>>> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
>>>> president John Adams,how might the further elections
>>>> have been affected?
>>>>
>>>For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have
>>> arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the
>>> VP would step up.
>
>Would the 12th Amendment change or not exist?

Depends. Some of the reasoning for the amendment was that the
originally the one with the most votes becomes President, and the
runner-up the Vice President. Before the development of "faction"
(parties) this was a workable process. However, you can imagine all
manner of chaos when the President had a VP from the other party.
Especially those occasions when the President did not serve out his
term.
>
>> For a second The Precedent would be set that the President served
>> until he died.
>Are you thinking that Adams could have kept winning every four years
>until 1826?
Dunno. The first issue is: does the VP become President; or shall
the House hold a vote? If the latter, how strong are the Federalists
vs the Democrat-Republican at the state level?
Secondly: In 1796 assuming that Washington
(Independent/Federalist) is on the ballot for a third term, and
nothing else changes, Thom. Jefferson (Democrat-Republican) is the VP.
_IF_ Washington dies in 1799, does Jefferson become the President?
That moves the Constitutional Crisis (when Tyler went from VP to
President on the death of Harrison in 1841) up to 1799. The
Constitution had only been in effect 10 years, how committed were
people to it? Could the Crisis have precipitated another Convention?
Assuming that the Constitutional Crisis of 1800 is solved in a
similar fashion as in 1841, and Jefferson winning 'election' in 1800
and the 12th is passed and ratified, there will be many changes, just
from having Adams out and Jefferson in.
One major difference is that Harrison had been President for all
of 32 days when he died. Taylor thus had most of the term to be
President. Jefferson would have become president in 1799, with 9
months till the election. If he wins in 1800, he continues on. If he
loses, he's still president until March of 1801.
--
pyotr filipivich
"History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"

On Thursday, November 16, 2023 at 5:41:45 PM UTC, pyotr filipivich wrote:
> Louis Epstein <l...@main.lekno.ws> on Mon, 13 Nov 2023 08:52:47 -0000
> (UTC) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >pyotr filipivich <ph...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> Graham Truesdale <graham.t...@gmail.com> on Mon, 6 Nov 2023
> >> 14:43:26 -0800 (PST) typed in alt.history.what-if the following:
> >>>On Tuesday, October 31, 2023 at 8:30:04?AM UTC, Louis Epstein wrote:
> >>>> In OTL George Washington chose to leave office in 1797
> >>>> and then died in 1799.
> >>>>
> >>>> Had he not set the 2-term precedent that then was
> >>>> followed by later presidents,and had died at the same
> >>>> time as OTL and presumably been succeeded by vice
> >>>> president John Adams,how might the further elections
> >>>> have been affected?
> >>>>
> >>>For a start, the issues which led to Tyler's precedent in 1841 would have
> >>> arisen four decades earlier. It was by no means undisputed in 1841 that the
> >>> VP would step up.
> >
> >Would the 12th Amendment change or not exist?
> Depends. Some of the reasoning for the amendment was that the
> originally the one with the most votes becomes President, and the
> runner-up the Vice President. Before the development of "faction"
> (parties) this was a workable process. However, you can imagine all
> manner of chaos when the President had a VP from the other party.
> Especially those occasions when the President did not serve out his
> term.
> >
> >> For a second The Precedent would be set that the President served
> >> until he died.
> >Are you thinking that Adams could have kept winning every four years
> >until 1826?
> Dunno. The first issue is: does the VP become President; or shall
> the House hold a vote? If the latter, how strong are the Federalists
> vs the Democrat-Republican at the state level?
> Secondly: In 1796 assuming that Washington
> (Independent/Federalist) is on the ballot for a third term, and
> nothing else changes, Thom. Jefferson (Democrat-Republican) is the VP.
>
In 1796, 138 electors could each cast 2 votes for 2 different people. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1796_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_votes_by_state "70 voted for Adams and some other candidate [than Jefferson] and 67 voted for Jefferson and some other candidate [than Adams]; one elector from Maryland voted for both Adams and Jefferson, bringing their respective totals to 71 and 68". [The 137 electors who did not vote for both] cast their second votes for a variety of people including George Washington. Compare 1792, when 135 electors could each cast 2 votes for 2 different people (Tennessee was admitted as a state between the 2 elections). See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1792_United_States_presidential_election#Electoral_votes_by_state - 3 electors did not vote and the other 132 each cast one vote for Washington. I suggest that, if Washington runs again in 1796, everybody will give him one vote - while his popularity is waning, I cannot see anyone actually voting for 2 other people (especially as the second most popular Democratic-Republican in OTL was Aaron Burr). I also suggest that the 70 who voted for Adams and not Jefferson, and the 68 who voted for Jefferson and not Adams in OTL, will give their second votes to them. Even if the Marylander votes for Jefferson and not Adams, that will leave Adams with 70 votes and Jefferson with 68, so Adams will be re-elected as VP.
>
> _IF_ Washington dies in 1799, does Jefferson become the President?
> That moves the Constitutional Crisis (when Tyler went from VP to
> President on the death of Harrison in 1841) up to 1799. The
> Constitution had only been in effect 10 years, how committed were
> people to it? Could the Crisis have precipitated another Convention?
> Assuming that the Constitutional Crisis of 1800 is solved in a
> similar fashion as in 1841, and Jefferson winning 'election' in 1800
> and the 12th is passed and ratified, there will be many changes, just
> from having Adams out and Jefferson in.
> One major difference is that Harrison had been President for all
> of 32 days when he died. Taylor thus had most of the term to be
> President. Jefferson would have become president in 1799, with 9
> months till the election. If he wins in 1800, he continues on. If he
> loses, he's still president until March of 1801.
> --
> pyotr filipivich
> "History rarely repeats herself" is the cliche. In reality she just
> lets fly with a frying pan yelling "Why weren't you listening the first time!?"