Your party identification starting in 1794

[Unconditional Surrender Truman]

This assumes that you are a white male with considerable assets for much of this period (6% of the VAP population is one figure that popped out per google). So, aside from the time machine aspect (forwards and backwards at once for the pimpled punks amongst you),  I suspect for much of the period, most of the votes here are illegal. I however, having a legal vote, would have voted for the bourgeoise party until 1932, before starting to go both ways. In hindsight, I would have  changed my vote from what I would have done at the time in 1968, and 2004. Thank you.

Oh it says party ID in the OP. How lame. Never mind.

Idk what exactly this figure is measuring, but more recent scholarship suggests the % of white men over 21 who could vote was up over 80% at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Considering the demographics of Atlas, the most likely reason people in this thread would be ineligible to vote is age, rather than property ownership.

I hate you. I had a good "meme" or whatever it is, and you f'ed it up with the facts, assuming that you are correct, which you most likely are. 
 

This assumes that you are a white male with considerable assets for much of this period (6% of the VAP population is one figure that popped out per google). So, aside from the time machine aspect (forwards and backwards at once for the pimpled punks amongst you),  I suspect for much of the period, most of the votes here are illegal. I however, having a legal vote, would have voted for the bourgeoise party until 1932, before starting to go both ways. In hindsight, I would have  changed my vote from what I would have done at the time in 1968, and 2004. Thank you.

Oh it says party ID in the OP. How lame. Never mind.

Idk what exactly this figure is measuring, but more recent scholarship suggests the % of white men over 21 who could vote was up over 80% at the time of the ratification of the Constitution. Considering the demographics of Atlas, the most likely reason people in this thread would be ineligible to vote is age, rather than property ownership.

Was private land that affordable back then? Makes me reconsider Georgism as more than just taxation on rich landowners...

It does vary to some degree by state: in New York for example barely half of adult white males met the minimum property requirement to be considered freeholders and be admitted to vote for the state house in 1790; about half that number were fully enfranchised and able to vote in all elections. (This is the environment from which Georgeism emerged a century later.) In most places, however, the threshold was more modest. Pennsylvania, for instance, enfranchised all male taxpayers (including black men) after the Revolution; there, and in New Hampshire, New Jersey, North Carolina, and Georgia, the share of white men who could vote was at or close to 90%. As time went by and the eastern states became more settled, it did become more difficult to acquire land cheaply, and the property requirements in some states (notably Rhode Island) became more onerous; hence the acquisition of new land in the West became a priority for the party representing these poor whites, the Jeffersonian Republicans —that is what the Louisiana Purchase was all about!*

*Well, that and access to the port of New Orleans, but that was also about securing the viability of settlement west of the Appalachians.

[KaiserDave]

Did the parties switch in 1928 or something? That’s what this thread implies.

There was this thing around then called the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression, you may have heard of it. It has nothing to do with the "parties switching" it has to do with how we as individuals may have reacted.

Why would an event change ones political affiliation if such event had no bearing on the political parties ideologies relative to one another?

Also, OP said they would’ve switched in 1928, before the Depression. Same with Scott.

An economic calamity of unprecedented proportions may have shaken one’s faith with the natural party of government if one had supported it (for me, mostly) up until that point.

There are many characteristics of the GOP vis a vis the Dems in the context in the 1910s and 1920s that if given proper weight, one would not want to self-ID as being part of the former party. For one second, forget about the Dixiecrats, they are only one part of the puzzle, yet some try to treat them as the whole.

I'm well aware of this, and my answer here is developed from a well rounded and oft discussed view of the historical circumstances, it's not just "Dixiecrats." Truman spells this out well. Just saying, Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, and Robert La Follette were all Republicans for much of the 20s.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Did the parties switch in 1928 or something? That’s what this thread implies.

There was this thing around then called the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression, you may have heard of it. It has nothing to do with the "parties switching" it has to do with how we as individuals may have reacted.

Why would an event change ones political affiliation if such event had no bearing on the political parties ideologies relative to one another?

Also, OP said they would’ve switched in 1928, before the Depression. Same with Scott.

An economic calamity of unprecedented proportions may have shaken one’s faith with the natural party of government if one had supported it (for me, mostly) up until that point.

There are many characteristics of the GOP vis a vis the Dems in the context in the 1910s and 1920s that if given proper weight, one would not want to self-ID as being part of the former party. For one second, forget about the Dixiecrats, they are only one part of the puzzle, yet some try to treat them as the whole.

I'm well aware of this, and my answer here is developed from a well rounded and oft discussed view of the historical circumstances, it's not just "Dixiecrats." Truman spells this out well. Just saying, Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, and Robert La Follette were all Republicans for much of the 20s.

That's good to hear. It's fair to say my point fits better when directed at some others in this thread more than towards you, and Truman basically said as much.

[KaiserDave]

Did the parties switch in 1928 or something? That’s what this thread implies.

There was this thing around then called the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression, you may have heard of it. It has nothing to do with the "parties switching" it has to do with how we as individuals may have reacted.

Why would an event change ones political affiliation if such event had no bearing on the political parties ideologies relative to one another?

Also, OP said they would’ve switched in 1928, before the Depression. Same with Scott.

An economic calamity of unprecedented proportions may have shaken one’s faith with the natural party of government if one had supported it (for me, mostly) up until that point.

There are many characteristics of the GOP vis a vis the Dems in the context in the 1910s and 1920s that if given proper weight, one would not want to self-ID as being part of the former party. For one second, forget about the Dixiecrats, they are only one part of the puzzle, yet some try to treat them as the whole.

I'm well aware of this, and my answer here is developed from a well rounded and oft discussed view of the historical circumstances, it's not just "Dixiecrats." Truman spells this out well. Just saying, Fiorello LaGuardia, Henry Wallace, and Robert La Follette were all Republicans for much of the 20s.

That's good to hear. It's fair to say my point fits better when directed at some others in this thread more than towards you, and Truman basically said as much.

I'll admit that the Democratic Party's southern wing may have been part of it for me as a liberal New Yorker, but it's certainly more complicated than that.

[KaiserDave]

To elaborate one last time, if I was a progressive New York Republican in the early 20s (and we've established they existed-and were plentiful), and I hung out with likeminded Republicans, and was active in Republican circles around the time of 1912 and after, I would probably stay a Republican, and some kind of big event (cough 1929 cough) would have to shake that. That's how people work.