Who would I vote for in EVERY election?

 So, this is an interesting discussion I felt would make an interesting blog post. It's asking who I would vote for in every election. It would be good to see who I would go for over time given various alignments and options, especially given how I feel like older candidates would have an "old book" problem in various eras. That said I'll look at this in two ways. First, what I would likely do given the information I would've had available at the time, and then who I would have supported via hindsight. This post provides a small amount of background info on each race but I might delve deeper at times.

First party system - 1796-1824

I'm skipping George Washington because he was unanimously supported and those elections didn't have valid alternatives. Obviously I would support him. The first party system started in 1796 and represented a general rift via federalism and anti federalism. One party wanted a stronger federal government, while some wanted a weaker federal government. I would say in the modern era, I would likely be a federalist, but in the past, I could make different decisions given my value system and distrust for power. Still, given, much like the modern era, the anti federalist movement was largely a front for slave owners opposing federal power, I might be more inclined to support federalists.

1796- John Adams

I'd probably vote for federalist John Adams. In 1796 I don't have strong feelings either way and find this election to be petty and full of mudslinging, but I'm a yankee through and through and it seemed like the democratic republicans mostly appealed to southerners who wanted slavery. In historical terms, having had both Adams and Jefferson as president before I actually like Jefferson better, as Adams seemed like a poor fit for the job, but in 1796, I'd want Adams. 

1800 - Thomas Jefferson

I would not be happy with Adams' leadership. The alien and sedition act is enough to turn me off. I would not like the military build up Adams supported. The attacks on Jefferson for not being Christian seem petty and stupid. I would want a change of leadership. In retrospect this would also be the best choice too.

1804- Thomas Jefferson

I would likely be happy with Jefferson's leadership and not see any appeal to Charles Pinckney. Apparently no one did. He won in a landslide.

1808- James Madison

Once again I don't see the point in voting for Charles Pinckley, and apparently no one did. Madison was the successor to Jefferson and like him or dislike him, he seems like the only decent option. Jefferson didn't do a bad job.

1812- DeWitt Clinton

I would have been turned off by James Madison getting us into the war of 1812, where we picked a fight with the largest power of the day unnecessarily and ended up getting attacked for it. Madison didn't do a great job in my opinion.

1816- James Monroe

I mean, I have trouble deciding this specific election. There isn't a lot of information online, and it seems fairly boring. The democratic republicans triangulated on the bank issue, and opposition to Monroe seemed weak. There just wasn't a reason not to vote for Monroe here. King just didn't seem to offer anything.

1820- James Monroe

Well he was unopposed, so...

Like most people I seem indifferent and no one seems interesting at this point. Definitely getting to the tail end of a party alignment here...

1824-John Quincy Adams

Ah, this is where crap hit the fan and we had four candidates running. Definitely tail end of an alignment, where the existing coalitions begin to fracture. Apparently it was because the democratic republican coalition was so dominant since 1800 that it began to split and fracture. It seemed like a lot of changes weren't decided by policy as much, despite several crises going on at the time. 

I really don't know who I would have chosen. Probably either John Quincy Adams or Andrew Jackson. While I hate Jackson as of now, at the time he had a populist appeal that would have appealed to me at the time. However, on the flip side, so did Trump, so I'm not sure. It reminds me a lot of a modern election. John Quincy Adams representing a status quo Clinton/Biden campaign that represents a strong steady hand, whereas Jackson kinda mirrored Trump's appeal. Neither Clay nor Crawford really stand out to me on anything. 

I'm tentatively going with JQA, but this would be an election where I would dislike all of the choices. 

That said, how did I do in this alignment?

Well I voted with the winner 7/8 times, or 87.5% of the time. 

And I voted for the democratic-republican party 5/8 times, or 62.5% of the time, and the federalists 3/8 times or 37.5% of the time. In this era, I would largely be an independent, but one who largely followed public opinion. I'm going to be honest, despite a lot of bitter mudslinging, most elections seemed clear cut in this era. The public voted for one candidate or the other by a landslide, with the democratic republicans becoming dominant. The only election I really went against the public's grain was 1812. There was a rally around the flag effect, people wanted Madison, while my anti war stance would have shifted me toward Clinton. 

Second party system- 1828-1856

This era is, in my opinion, one of the most boring in American politics. You had the Jacksonian democrats replacing the dominant democratic republican coalition, and the whigs replacing the federalists. This era is, as I like to call it, like watching modern republicans fight each other. Jacksonian democrats were populists, with Jackson basically being 1800s Donald Trump. But then, the whigs were like watching traditional conservatives concerned with decorum and rule of law deck it out with this Trump faction. I guess that's kind of what I hate about modern democrats. They're kinda taking up that mantle, and it alienates me, but I digress. Ugh, we need a third party...

1828- Andrew Jackson

Yeah. I'm gonna be honest, reading about 1828 I couldn't see myself liking JQA much. While Jackson's appeal to the election basically reminds me of Trump screaming about the 2020 election being rigged, the other side were just out of touch elitists. Ugh. Like, you could literally make this a hypothetical election of 2024 and take out third parties. And while in THAT case I might fall behind the democrats, I wouldn't be happy about it. In 1828 terms Jackson would still be relatively new, and I like some pizazz to my politics. I likely would've voted Jackson in the same way a lot of people voted for Trump in 2016. 

1832- Henry Clay

I would not be happy with Jackson. Much like a 2016 voter hating Trump, I would hate Jackson's handling of things. Dude did NOT know how to govern. He seemed corrupt, too temperamental for the job, I wouldn't like his policies regarding shooting down the bank, or his massacre of native Americans. Just...screw Jackson. I would not be happy with Henry Clay, but I would like to see a return to normalcy. And it's not like the third party, an "anti mason" party, was any good. So I would probably hold my nose for Clay. Oh god, I sound like a Biden supporter...

1836- Daniel Webster

Ugh, another bad one. I mean while the Jackson administration would be horrible for me, and the whigs would have some good ideas, one of their attacks against the Jacksonian democrats was opposition to slavery. Hell yeah I want some opposition to slavery! But yeah, this era in general is what I fear for our future. Just decades of two terrible out of touch parties that I despise. A whole alignment among extremely incompetent and corrupt populists, and the opposition party being a worthless conservative party. And the third party candidate is just...another conservative whig. Screw, it, going Daniel Webster I guess.

1840- William Henry Harrison

And yet another bad one. Again, I fear this is our future for the next 40 years. But yeah, Van Buren would've been up to his neck in crises by now and they finally got the best of him. Seriously, the democratic party of this era SUCKED. And the whigs weren't much better. But at least the whigs represented stability even if their politics were very boring and they refused to run on any good ideas ever, often for "political" reasons. 

1844- James Birney

I mean, most people were arguing over annexation of Texas this election. And the idea, while it makes sense in hindsight, seemed awful at the time as it was a tacit endorsement of slavery given the fact that southern states would become slave states if brought into the union. And of course, both parties ended up supporting annexing it. So that pissed abolitionists off and they did a third party vote for James Birney. And given my propensity to vote third party and distaste for two out of touch parties, I would too. Funny thing is, the whigs even used the same arguments democrats do today to shame people into voting for them.

1848- Martin Van Buren

After rejecting Van Buren so many times in the 1830s, he finally became the anti slavery guy, providing an alternative to dysfunctional and out of touch two party politics. 

1852- John P. Hale

Another bad election in which I vote for a third party. Almost like there's a pattern here.

1856- John C. Freemont

The first election the republican party ran in. Them being the radical anti slavery party. I would have happily voted for them. Because let's be honest, this system is a joke at this point. And we all know what happened next.

I'm going to be honest, reading about this era...scares me. It legitimately scares me. It most mirrors the politics I feel the republicans and democrats today are trending toward, where we have a populist republican party and an institutionally conservative democratic party, with the coalitions being very dysfunctional and anti change. And while I would prefer the stability of the institutionally conservative party, I despise BOTH parties. And as this era went on, America just became more and more divided, with all of the worthless political compromises and posturing being all for naught, and it led to the civil war. If it gives me any solace, I think my third party votes would be vindicated in this era, and perhaps I myself am thinking decades ahead of my time today. The point is, reading about this era scares me. 

As far as how I did:

I voted with the winner 2/8 times, or 25%. That's awful, but that's what happens when I hate the alignment and reject the two party duopoly and vote my conscience. I stick by that. 

I voted for the democrats once out of 8 elections (12.5% of the time), the whigs 3 times (37.5% of the time), and anti slavery third party candidates 50% of the time. This era sucked. If anything it teaches me to always stick to my guns on politics no matter how unpopular you may be, because perhaps you will be vindicated by history though. 

Third party system - 1860-1892

While wikipedia marked 1856 as the start of this party system, I mark 1860 because the republicans did not win in 1856 and it was more of a transition election to me anyway. This era is marked by the civil war, reconstruction, and beginning of capitalism. This is where my politics starts to become more relevant and I can take stronger stances on issues other than slavery.

1860- Abraham Lincoln

Lincoln is bae. One of the best presidents ever despite being somewhat tyrannical. I would've voted for him on being anti slavery alone, but he also tended to have socialist sympathies in general and was pen pals with Karl Marx. Weird history fact no one is taught these days. This dude was progressive way ahead of his time and while not perfect, I would happily support him.

1864- Abraham Lincoln

Middle of civil war, probably be unhappy with Lincoln's civil rights violations and imposition of the draft, but I'm just gonna go with a Bush-esque "dont change horses midstream" approach to the issue. And given the alternative was "keep the war but don't abolish slavery", yeah, that's about the most unattractive campaign ever in my opinion.

1868- Ulysses S. Grant

Straightforward, democrats represented the south and despite Grant's flaws I would've went with him.

1872-Horace Greeley

Not my original choice, but reading more about him he seems progressive and based as fudge. I wasn't happy with Grant anyway. But Greeley was actually a hyper progressive socialist in his time. So, vote.

1876- Rutherford B. Hayes

This one is hard, the GOP seemed corrupt here, but the democrats wanted to ease up on reconstruction. I guess in this era I'd stick with republicans though. 

1880- James B. Weaver

At this point I'd jump ship from the GOP. While Garfield is stronger here than Hancock, I really would be fed up with two corrupt parties at this point who just seemed to be doing their typical tit for tat thing. Weaver was the greenback candidate and he was pushing for extremely progressive labor issues like the "8 hour work day, safety regulations, and an end to child labor" (source). Like, this dude was FDR before FDR was a thing. Way ahead of his time. Given the lack of two party system attention given to capitalism's obvious failings, bye GOP, hello greenbacks. 

1884- Benjamin F. Butler

He was the anti-monopoly party candidate, and the strongest candidate that had an anti big business platform. He was even endorsed by the greenback party. Yeah. On the tail end of this alignment, as the discussion shifts away from reconstruction and slavery and capitalism's excesses become the big problem, I start to support these third party guys in absence of the republicans and democrats putting forward a big candidate.

1888- Alson Streeter

While the two parties fight over tariffs, I push for labor reform with the union labor party ticket.

1892- James B. Weaver

More tariff bullcrap, and here I just want labor rights. Screw me right?

That said, this alignment was solid for me in the first half, but in the second half I just became alienated. I would have been for ending slavery and civil rights, but once the luster of republicans wore off and my main focus would be labor rights and the like, I would quickly shift to third parties. Those guys were ahead of their times, pushing for stuff that it took decades to gain traction. Third parties were a half a century ahead of their time. Really shows how regressive republicans and democrats can be. They get it right a couple elections when a crisis blows up in their face, but then they start failing the people and fighting over petty incremental BS.

In this era, I voted with the winner 4/9 times or 44%. I stuck by the GOP in their glory days, only to bail for pro labor third parties once they started becoming viable.

I voted republican 4/9 times (44%) and third party 5/9 times (56%). I was a republican who shifted to being an independent around 1880. To be fair I kinda cooled on the republicans as early as 1872, I just didn't see a good third party alternative earlier (EDIT: I backed Greeley). Greenbacks existed in 1876 but they didn't stand out to me.

Fourth party system - 1896-1928

I mean here we FINALLY started seeing a shift toward economic issues. The civil war coalitions FINALLY died off, and people wanted something new. Hence, the "populist" era of politics. It kind of reminds me of the second party system and potentially our upcoming (ugh) seventh party system if my nightmare scenario happens. Two ineffective parties but one better than the other.

1896- Charles Matchett

McKinley seemed like a boring status quo candidate. Dear republicans, it's not 1860 any more, get with the times. Bryan had fiery passion but I kinda see him as regressive on social issues. And he seemed to be more talk than action on economics. That said I'm going to start off strongly by supporting Charles Matchett of the socialist labor party. I mean, I just want labor rights. Screw me, right?

1900- Eugene Debs

Another boring election between the same two bad choices as last time. Social democratic party it is.

1904- Eugene Debs

While Theodore Roosevelt ended up being okay for the time, almost Elizabeth Warren-esque, I'd still take Eugene Debs. There's something to be said of the two party duopoly sucking for much of American history. Really, I don't care about coinage of gold and silver and these incremental fixes. Give me the socialist.

1908- Eugene Debs

While I would prefer Taft over Bryan, Debs is better. All hail Debs.

1912-Eugene Debs

Roosevelt is good, but Debs is the man. All your Debs belong to us. Wilson was okay but a clear third choice.

1916- Allen L. Benson

I mean Wilson's anti war stance seemed nice, and the republicans didn't offer anything worth a darn, so I can see why Wilson won. Third party candidates were in turmoil around this time. Roosevelt refused the progressive party nomination, and Debs the man didn't run in 1916. I'd stick with the socialist party though.

Honestly, if I voted for Wilson, I would have been betrayed anyway, so I'm glad to stick to my third party line. 

1920- Eugene Debs

Dude ran from prison. Such a trooper. Got arrested for protesting Wilson's WWI draft after he broke his campaign promises. Harding seemed like a better candidate than Cox, but honestly, the two party system is just trash.

1924- Robert M. La Follette

With Debs gone and a red scare going on the socialists kind of faded into obscurity and ended up merging with the progressives. I'd vote for the progressive Robert M. La Follette. 

1928-Herbert Hoover

This was a crappy election. The socialist and progressive movements seemed to have up and left. I would hate both Hoover and Smith. Smith seemed corrupt and to be honest I almost never supported democrats up through this era. Smith opposed prohibition but was otherwise a weak candidate. Hoover wins by default. I'm not voting for the prudes in the prohibition party. 

This era kind of sucked. I'm going to be honest. There was a lot of valid movements toward progressive ideals during this time frame. Theodore Roosevelt, Taft, and the like, weren't awful. The problem is, they were mostly talk, many of the issues discussed seem relatively minor in the grand scheme of things, but I ended up going consistently with socialist and progressive third party candidates over the big guys. The socialists were ahead of their times. They ran campaigns akin to what you would expect from the greens today. The republicans often offered a decent second choice but they often messed around with incremental fixes that didn't seem to do much, whereas I like systemic solutions. While my current politics weren't represented in this era as they're way ahead of this time, I would fall back to fiery labor activism around 100 years ago, pushing for the most progressive candidates wanting major reforms. Socialists offered reforms we wouldn't even touch until Roosevelt. So I went with them, given my propensity to vote third party.

All in all I voted for republicans 1/9 times (11%) and third party candidates 8/9 times (89%). I also voted for the winning candidate only once (11%). I stand by my values, even in defeat. After all, I feel vindicated by history. 

Fifth party system - 1932-1976

Now we're freaking talking. Progressive issues hit the mainstream, and Roosevelt comes along, doing what I would have been calling for for at least 50 years by this point. This is probably the most progressive golden era of American politics for me, and where I finally come back to the two party system after abandoning it for a good half a century.

1932- Franklin D. Roosevelt

I mean, he was better than Hoover. 

1936- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Roosevelt did good. Unemployment and social security. I mean, it isn't exactly what I would be for, but it was something substantial. Landon largely accepted the New Deal, but criticized its efficiency apparently. Fair, but without knowing what he would propose instead, sticking with FDR. Landon seemed pro business so that's a no from me. He seemed to basically be low key arguing for conservatism.

1940- Franklin D. Roosevelt

Labor regulations, OSHA, minimum wage. I'm in love, man. This is real crap. Willkie ran against that and acted like a small government conservative. Just...LOL. No. FDR all the way. I admit him breaking the two term tradition was suspect, but he did such a good job he deserved a third term.

1944- Franklin D. Roosevelt

All the republicans have it "but but muh traditions!". Yeah, no. FDR. 

1948- Harry S. Truman

Eh, I'm mixed on this one. Truman seemed to be a solid candidate, but we started seeing fractures in the coalition, as he was weaker than FDR. Two groups splintered off as the party had infighting over its platform. The progressive party was more progressive on some issues, taking a stronger stance on civil rights, and anti war, and some economics, while the dixiecrats went more conservative. Still, I feel like despite the progressive party's advantages, I would probably go with Truman to keep the coalition going. Not to mention I would support a strong foreign policy in this era, only backing down in coming decades like the 1960s. I mean, at least this coalition I can work with and seemed to be pushing substantive change. The differences aren't enough for me to abandon it.

1952- Adlai Stevenson

And this is where things start going downhill for me. The republicans still sucked. Ike wasn't a bad president in hindsight, but his 1952 campaign is cringe to me. Not big on mccarthyism and red scare crap. At the same time the democrats owned the Korean war at this point, making me question whether going Truman was the right thing to do in 1948. Stevenson ended up being a weak candidate to be honest. Given no third party candidates though, I'd go with Stevenson. The democrats were losing their luster, but I would not support the republicans probably. 

1956- Adlai Stevenson

Man what is with these repeat elections between crap candidates sometimes? They ran Stevenson again. Still, he seemed progressive, wanted to expand the new deal, end the draft, de-escalate tensions with the USSR, all good things. Eisenhower was popular, and I don't think he was a bad president, but I would still stick with the democrats here. 

1960- John F. Kennedy

Eh, boring campaign, not much difference between the two. But I would probably go JFK because of my democratic party affiliation and his charisma. 

1964- Lyndon B. Johnson

Republicans STILL running on conservatism? Gosh, what is this? The 1920s? Goldwater sucked, and Johnson was very progressive, so I'd wholeheartedly support Johnson. 

1968- Hubert Humphrey

Honestly, this is where I would start getting turned off from the democrats. They got too involved in Vietnam, and while I would support them through all the southerners flinging their dung around over "muh states rights", the 1968 primary seemed very crooked. Much like 1948, there was a lot of tension with progressives and dixiecrats fracturing off of the coalition, except this time the coalition ended for good. The south left to join the republicans, the progressives ended up dealing with a hostile institutional party that didn't listen, and it was kind of a crapshow. I still would've stuck with Humphrey though I think. Even if I would be very unhappy, Nixon primarily appealed to the south, and I sure as heck wasn't supporting Wallace. 

1972- George McGovern

Here's the thing. I actually would have largely liked Nixon up to this point. I mean, the dude was even for freaking UBI, my signature policy. The problem was, so was McGovern. And then Nixon turned against UBI when McGovern was for it. Nixon was a bit of a scumbag, as we know, although the extent of that wasn't well known until after he won reelection. Still, McGovern was for tons of progressive stuff that I largely supported. He was radical for his time, but he was my kind of radical. Still, I would be honest, I would be pissed at the party establishment for stopping him.

1976- Jimmy Carter

Ford would not have been very popular in my book. He was just the "steady hand" kind of guy after Nixon's disgrace and Carter seemed fairly progressive.

 All in all, throughout this era, I would have been a solid democrat. FDR had swept me off of my feet and I would likely remain loyal to the party throughout this entire era. A few republicans like Eisenhower and Nixon seemed not terrible, but none of them were the best candidate.

I went for the democrats 12/12 times (100%), and my candidate would have won 8/12 (67%) times. And the times I would have lost would not have been bad. But ultimately the tides shifted in 1980, leading to the modern era.

Sixth Party System - 1980-?

While the fifth party system is the golden age of America in my opinion, the sixth party system sucked. By 1980 the New Deal coalition was gone and Reagan's coalition was ascendant. This caused the overton window to move way right, where democrats started sounding like last era's republicans, and the republicans started sounding like unthinkable right wingers. Reagan essentially took advantage of Carters' crises and came along at just the right time to offer an alternative attractive to people. This is, in my opinion, the beginning of a new dark age of politics.

1980- Jimmy Carter

I would likely not be thrilled with Carter's leadership, suffering malaise like the rest of the country, but against an existential threat like Reagan you bet your butt I'm supporting him. I see the appeal of Reagan, I could even see a dumber me voting for him. But honestly, I would stick to the liberal tradition and back Carter. This is the kind of party loyalty that's good, it's loyalty not to an organization, but set of ideas. And I would want to keep the new deal tradition going at all costs.

1984- Walter Mondale

It seems obvious I would hate Reagan and vote for Mondale. 

1988- Michael Dukakis

Why yes, I would support Tanky Boi. 

1992- Bill Clinton

Being a democrat at this point is like being a masochist. Since 1968, it's just been disappointment after disappointment. And Clinton would be a sell out of the ideology. It would seem obvious, by this point, that perhaps a change of direction was needed. I wouldn't like Bush. Clinton at least says all the right things, despite running as a centrist "new democrat". Perot was interesting but largely appealed to conservative sentiments. So yeah, I would go with Clinton.

1996- Bill Clinton

I'm going to be honest, I would be unhappy with Clinton's leadership. He would have sold out quite a bit in my opinion. I'm split for this one. Because honestly, Ralph Nader ran this election and I would be more inclined to vote for him in principle with my present mind, mindset. But if I were say a 250 year old man by this point voting in every election, I likely would have tolerated Clinton again. Still, I'm going to be honest, "new democrats" would have been a bitter pill for me. At the same time, I would have likely accepted them as a necessary evil of the times. So I will put Clinton this election, but honestly I could have just as easily gone Ralph Nader. Still, it might be too early for me to be that rebellious. 

2000- Al Gore

This would have been the green party's breakout moment. Much like 1996, I would feel conflicted. Part of me would stick with the democrats solely because of my bias toward them in the previous 70 years, but I would be unhappy with them. Clinton was a sell out, Gore was a sell out. Bush would be untenable to my current politics. I mean I would be tempted to vote green, and I admit the greens did a better job at appealing to my platform, but I likely would have still committed to working within the democratic party given the hostile environment in previous decades and wanting to maintain the remnants of the New Deal. Yes, as far as 2000 goes, I think looking at it in the context of history, I would likely be a "blue no matter whoer." Heck I might even be frustrated by green voters.

2004- John Kerry

So, the real life me started getting into politics after 9/11 and would have voted for Bush, as I was a religious conservative back then. However, current me likely would have voted for Kerry. Again, not ready to rock the boat yet and turn on the democratic party. I likely would accept the new democrats as a necessary evil in this cursed age. Nader would have been a choice my heart would make, but again, context of the times.

2008- Barack Obama

Real life me voted for McCain simply because I felt Obama was a radical socialist who wanted to turn us communist. LOL. Stupid conservative me. But yeah, I'd fully support Obama and be one of those people hoping he could start shifting us away from New Democrats. I would quickly support him over Clinton and would hope he would win. Only to be disappointed.

2012- Barack Obama

Real life me did vote for Obama this election, and this is where I made my shift to liberalism. Romney represented an awful corporate candidate, and the tea party made me absolutely hostile to conservatism. This is where hypothetical me starts to align with the real me, where I would say we would be on the same page.

2016- Jill Stein

Okay, now THIS is where I give me grand rebellion vs the democrats. Both real world and hypothetical world. While I could have turned on them as early as 1996, I likely would have bit my tongue and accepted the need for the democratic party to moderate itself after the failures of the past decades. Clinton at least delivered us elections. But I'm going to be honest. 2008 changed everything for me. The recession convinced me the system is fundamentally rotten, and at this point, I make my stand against the democrats. They refuse to change and shift back to the left. They spat in the face of voters like me and told me I had to accept them, or else. Hypothetical me would see this as an outrage, being, by this point, a loyal democrat for over 80 years. And real me, saw things the same. Real me, hypothetical me, same page. Screw the democrats, this is where I break from the party.

It should be noted I believe 2016 is a similar type of election to a lot of the tail end political realignment elections where coalitions start fracturing. We saw it before, the 4 way in 1824, the 1856 free for all, 1968, etc. The current realignment has started coming to the end in 2016. And as I said, I see four factions. Trumpers, traditional conservatives, "new democrats", and progressives. Me aligning with progressives most, but really being a "humanity first" yang ganger which is a much smaller movement. 

But yeah, I rejected HRC, I'm not sorry by this point, and I felt like I compromised enough since as early as the 1960s. And this is where the democrats start realigning themselves. The thing is, this scares me because this realignment could be a lot like the 2nd or 4th alignment. One where my politics are completely ignored. 

2020- Howie Hawkins

Democrats run Biden after having such a diverse field with some candidates being good, I'm voting for Howie.

I'm gonna be honest, looking at historical trends, I might be screwed. I've noticed a pattern here and that pattern is I'm willing to vote for candidates that are a good 50 years ahead of their time. I might lose elections in the process, but history always seems to vindicate my vote. Maybe by 2070 people will be like "you know what, outofplatoscave2012 was right all along." One can hope. But I stand by my vote. I would have supported the democrats so loyally for 80 years because I wanted to keep that tradition alive, but by the tail end of this alignment, it's quite clear that the new deal dream is dead, and the democrats had turned their backs on it. And I ain't taking it any more.

That said, this era, I voted democrat 9/11 times (82%) and green 2/11 times (18%). I would have won theelection 4/11 times (36%). Kind of what happens in a dark age of conservative run politics, with me eventually turning on the democrats.

The way I see it, the upcoming 7th party system, if we're not in it already, either has to make room for a progressive movement, or I'm gonna be in exile voting for third parties for a long time to come. Because much like eras 2 and 4, I really don't identify strongly with either party any more. Sure, the democrats are BETTER, but given they're holding the system hostage, yeah, no. I'm done with them.

Conclusion

The final tally is this. Out of 57 elections:

Democratic-republican/democratic party votes: 27 (47%)

Federalist/whig/republican party votes: 11 (19%)

Third party votes: 19 (33%)

My votes are very split, and how I end up voting depends largely on the era. Some alignments I really liked the republicans (such as the third and to some extent fourth era), whereas I tended to vote democrat a plurality of the time, primarily because they had a good start in the first era, and were dominant for me in the fifth and sixth. However, in some eras I just end up disliking both parties, such as in the second, third, and fourth eras. Arguably I could have voted more for greens in the modern era, and I probably should have from 1996 on in retrospect, but hypothetical me being influenced by the forces present at the time likely would have held my tongue and supported centrist democrats as a necessary evil in hopes to eventually reclaim dominance. The problem is, on the tail end of this alignment, it appears to me they're more than satisfied to remain a centrist corporate party, and have fundamentally rejected its past roots in FDR's progressivism. I could have tolerated centrism in the 90s and 2000s as a way to stave off republican dominance, but with the goal of eventually reclaiming its past glory as the dominant party based on progressive politics. In rejecting candidates like Bernie Sanders and supporting centrism, even looking to expand its centrist coalition with disaffected republican voters, I am looking to leave the democrats. I may end up just doing what I would have done in previous eras, supporting third party causes decades ahead of their time in hopes a major party takes it up.

Well, while my ideals have remained consistent across generations in this simulation, obviously my affiliation is constantly in flux. Outside of 80 years of unbroken democratic party support in the modern eras, I have been willing to support anyone who I feel supports my causes. I arguably would have, for a brief 20 year period, been a loyal republican outside of the one socialist running. And if I wasnt so busy supporting socialists during the populist era, I arguably would have regularly supported them in that era too. So I'm willing to play ball for anyone who will work for me. Either major political party, and even third parties. 

I just thought this was an interesting simulation to do.