A highly subjective question. And a bit unclear.
There were four Presidents who lost the popular vote, but "won" either by being selected by the House of Representatives (John Quincy Adams) or by getting more electoral votes (Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush).
So perhaps one could argue that one of these four should "not" have been "elected".
Or perhaps the question is speaking of who had the worst impact on our history, and so should not have been elected to cause such harm. However, opinions will greatly vary on that, and many credible arguments could be made.
For instance, Abraham Lincoln decided that a war that cost both sides 600,000 lives was better than simply eminent domaining the slaves, paying fair market value, and promptly emancipating them. So maybe he should not have been elected. Or perhaps Harry Truman, who killed the second greatest number of civilians in WWII, after Adolf Hitler. (The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, when demonstration blasts off the coast might have ended the war as quickly.)
So we'll not find any agreement on one person on that basis.
Practicality? Well, William Harrison served thirty days or so before he died. So it could be argued that we should not have elected him as it was a waste of time.
Anti-intellectual snobbery? Then we should not have elected Dr. Woodrow Wilson, the only President who had a doctorate - and as a side note, was racist.
Pointless and esoteric bigotry? Then take your pic, we've had a Catholic, a single man, a fat man...perhaps from some people's perspectives, certain of those should not have been elected.
From an anarchic perspective, George Washington should not have been elected, and we should have stayed with the Articles of Confederation, and had nothing to with the Constitution.
We could go on and on. I'm afraid that there is no one specific President that we could make a better case for than all the others. I know that many are thinking "George W. Bush", for having his election scandals...but as a studier of history, I can assure you that nothing worse happened than had already happened in the John Kennedy election farce.
There is simply no basis for naming one over another. The closest we could come is the collective list of the four not popularly elected.
No- Clinton can not be president because he as already been twicel elected. Therefore he can not be vice-president.
He should not have been elected president but his life should not be threatened just because he was able to fool the American people by the use of his political machine to become elected
At this writing, 5/3/2010, no woman has ever been elected President or Vice President of the US.
The US president has always been elected in substantially the same way. The real change was in the way the vice-president was elected.
Obama
Technically speaking, they've all been elected in to *office*. However, Ford is the only one who was never elected to the Executive Office (as either President or Vice-President).
All have been elected in some format. When Washington became president there was no popular vote. Instead the men of Congress elected the president.
(The) President-Elect.
no
There have been several presidents that have not been elected as president. However, these men have all been elected as vice president, and became president on the death or exit of office of the president they served under. But only one was not elected as president or vice president. That was Gerald Rudolph Ford. He was not the vice president Richard Milhous Nixon was elected with, but appointed after Spiro Theodore Agnew left. Nixon was caught with The Watergate Scandal, and resigned before impeachment. Upon resignation, Gerald Rudolph Ford became preisdent.
all of them No U. S. President has ever been directly elected by the people.
Several states seceded when they learned that Lincoln has been elected president.