http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1792_US_Presidential_Election
Once again voting for Federalist electors.
Of course I’d vote for good old George. Adams was pretty awesome as well, I think our most underrated founder.
But George Clinton could’ve brought us to the Planet of Funk!
Adams was kind of an ass in some ways but despite bickering he was effective. I grew up on Adams St., obviously named for him.
We are almost getting to competetive elections here. By 1792 there have already been divisions in elite opinion along the familiar Country/Court divide. Madison and Jefferson have realized that Washington is on the other side of that and have both quietly (in person) and loudly (in the new partisan press) begun to oppose the centralizing forces of Federalism. They have taken their famous Northern tour that is widely suspected (then and now) as having electoral significance.
But politics are still relatively calm. The French Revolution is in full swing but the long war with Great Britain has not yet begun. No one has any idea who Citizen Genet is at this point. The Bill of Rights has been passed and ratified. The Whiskey Rebellion has not yet broken out. Washington is still above criticism and is on the ticket. Imagine how much this state of events would annoy our current news media types who live for one story and one story alone: who will win the next presidential election.
Federalist sympathizer, voting Dem-Pub just to throw the Feds a slight scare, they shouldn’t get complacent. 
I’ve never liked John Adams, who was an authoritarian monarchist. Many people felt the same way in 1789, and Adams won his first vice-presidential election with only a plurality (34 of 69) of electoral votes. The opposition was divided, however, with the electors acting as free agents, and no other candidate in 1789 received more than 9 votes.
The opposition determined not to repeat this mistake in 1792, and a group of opposition politicians assembled in Philadelphia on October 16, 1792, as a distant forerunner of the later Congressional caucuses and national nominating conventions. The group settled on George Clinton of New York as the opposition vice presidential candidate. This marked an important first step in the transition of the presidential electors from free agents to partisans voting for candidates who were nominated elsewhere.
The process was imperfect, as the antifederalist electors from Kentucky didn’t get the memo and cast their second votes for Jefferson. But still, Clinton scored a very respectable 50 votes against Adams’ 77.
Adams’ reaction illustrates why I don’t like him: “Damn 'em, damn 'em, damn 'em. You see that an elective government will not do.”
Washington was, of course, the indispensable man of both the Revolution and the Constitutional Convention, and has shown after four years that he can be trusted with the Presidency (not that I ever had any doubt). Adams’s "authoritarian monarch"ism was 'way overblown, I think; few worked harder than he did at establishing a republic here. He had seen the excesses of monarchies in both Britain and France. Now, having had little chance to do anything of consequence in the Vice Presidency, perhaps he’ll get more done in a second term, and establish the importance of that post once and for all. They’ve got my vote.
Oh sure, that’s rich coming from you. Defend the neo-monarchist, just like you said you were going to be a good king and totally wouldn’t get corrupted by jewelry. 
I confess I have different standards of governance for the United States and Gondor.