I think you're misunderstanding the electoral system back then, before the 12th Amendment. Then, electors voted for two people without distinguishing which one was President and which Vice-President; the second-place finisher became Vice-President. So, you can't give Pickney's 64 votes to Adams, because they were coming from the same electors who also voted for Adams.
No I understand it just fine you pick two people and then who ever gets the most is President second most is Vice President. From Wikipedia:
Under the original procedure for the Electoral College, as provided in
Article II, Section 1, Clause 3, each elector could cast two votes. Each elector could not vote for two people inhabiting the same state as that elector. This prohibition was designed to keep electors from voting for two "
favorite sons" of their respective states.
[3] If exactly one person received a vote from a
majority of the electors, that person won the election.
If there was more than one individual who received a vote from a majority of the electors, the House of Representatives would choose one of them to be President. If no individual had a majority, then the House of Representatives would choose from the five individuals with the greatest number of electoral votes. In either case, a majority of state delegations in the House was necessary for a candidate to be chosen to be President.
Selecting the Vice President was a simpler process. Whichever candidate received the greatest number of votes, except for the one elected President, became Vice President. The Vice President, unlike the President, did not require the votes of a majority of electors. In the event of a tie for second place between multiple candidates, the Senate would choose one of them to be Vice President, with each Senator casting one vote. It was not specified in the Constitution whether the sitting Vice President could cast a tie-breaking vote for Vice President under the original formula.
Therefore, remove Pinckney from the equation and you can make a logical assumption that at least some of those votes would go to Adams. Why? Because those are Federalist voters who were removed from Adams column because of Hamilton's influence. These voters didn't all necessarily pick Pinckney and Adams or Pinckney and XXXX but if there is no Pinckney then it is possible for them to vote Adams and XXXX there fore possibly swinging the election to Adams.
Yes, the people did support Jefferson and Burr. (Again, there was no "headliner".) But it was the legislature that chose the electors; you can get a different result there without changing one whit of popular support. Right?
In this case there was a top guy, not by electoral math, but by consensus. Southern Republicans wanted Jefferson as President and Northern Republicans preferred Burr, hence the problem in Pennsylvania. Was there some sort of corrupt deal or something? There does not appear to be any evidence but I do believe that Jefferson and Burr campaigned with the agreement of Jefferson as President Burr as V.P. and some Electors saw it differently (probably in Pennsylvania).
As to popular support, I don't think Adams can gain any popularity he is personally abrasive and difficult to get along with and is closely identified with Federalist policies due to his writings, public comments, and his votes (he did sign the Acts remember, and discreetly agreed with the removal of Gallatin from the Senate) also he supported the Whiskey Tax and the Bank among other things. Adams is just not a popular guy, among the people and the looser the property requirement the less likely Adams is to get votes.
Your welcome.