Huh? Burr was running for veep on the ticket with Jefferson. A defect in the Constitution, since corrected by amendment, resulted in both of them receiving an equal number of electoral votes and the election wound up in the House, where Jefferson was eventually elected.
As this was the exact intent of the voters, none of whom voted for Burr to be President, I fail to see why you consider Jefferson's election corrupt.
Culture of corruption is just one of their three word slogans. They limit them to 3 words, because their base is so dumb and undisciplined that they can only remember three.
There were no "tickets" in the early days. The runner-up for President became Vice-President. This doesn't mean that the widespread charges of corruption were any truer then, nor caused by any higher motives than they are now. Various historians say that election was fraught with insane partisan bickering, and insane partisan journalism -- which became "history". Sound familiar?
My comments were off-the-cuff and not quite right but the source was a History Book Club review of "The Failure of the Founding Fathers"
"...Jefferson and Burr tied, and havoc resulted. Ackerman tells this story with full attention to the multiple legal dimensions. One of the insanities of the 1787 Constitution is that electoral college deadlocks were to be broken on a one-state/one vote basis by the lame-duck Congress, which in this instance meant a Congress dominated by electorally-repudiated Federalists. Jefferson, who as Vice-President was also President of the Senate, had the task of counting the electoral votes, and Ackerman demonstrates that he played fast and loose with regard to Georgia's votes, which failed to meet the formal requirements set out by the Constitution. Had they not been counted, the House - meaning the lame-duck Federalists - would have been able to choose among the top five candidates instead of only Jefferson and Burr, who because of the Georgia votes, had gained a majority of the electoral votes. Moreover, at least some Federalists were tempted to pass a new succession-in-office act that would have resulted in John Marshall's becoming president if the House proved unable to break the tie. (In the event it took 26 votes before Federalist Rep. Bayard of Delaware in effect threw in the towel). One factor discouraging any such scheme was the threat of mobilization of state militias by Jeffersonian governors, who were fully prepared to march on the new capital in Washington should the Federalists try to steal the election."
The facts of the 1824 election are well-known
Here's an article on His Fraudulency.
And here's an article on His Fraudulency II, as his knowledgeable detractors refer to our current President.