How to determine someone's voter affilitation?

[FedoraFan112390]

My grandpa has been deceased since the '70s. We however have his NYC voter registration card from 1963 and presumably he voted. On the card, it does NOT list his party affiliation. Would there be any way to find out what he was registered as, and even perhaps who he voted for, or what elections he voted in? I ask because it'd be a way of getting to know the man's beliefs without being able to ask him.

I don't want to start a big political discussion as those are not really appreciated here, but perhaps his history could give some clues as to his beliefs:

1) Served 7 years in the Army and fought in WWII as a Staff Sgt., ETO. Wounded in the Battle of the Bulge and that ended his military career. Collected and saved some literature from the War, for example "Why America Fights" by Sherwood Edy. Had a big collection of 1940s or 1950s era WWII histories or encyclopedias; they were apparently a large set.
2) Was a first generation American of Italian descent; A Catholic.
3) Was a member of the VFW and the American Legion, at least in 1957 and 1958 respectively. Was for (perhaps a brief time) a member of a painters, dressmakers, etc Union in the late 1950s. Was a blue collar man and had a variety of jobs from the 40s-70s including a Chauffeur, a Taxi Cab Driver, a Grocer, a Printer, a Postal Deliver for about ten or eleven years, a Security Guard (working with the Pinkertons in 1964-1965). Was a licensed Hunter and perhaps even a licensed hunting teacher (not sure); He got his hunting license in 1956 or so. Was a member of the Polar Bear Club in the late 40s/early '50s.
4) Supposely was against one aunt becoming a Nun as he felt she could do better with her life (this was the late 60s). Supposedly criticized my grandmother's "obsession with the Church" because he felt that led to her decision.***
5) Wouldn't allow my other aunt to join the military during Vietnam because he felt women weren't treated with respect in the military.

**= 4 comes from my grandmother's story and she has a bias against him due to their marriage breaking up.

 

[Philip A.]

Sounds like a "Realist" to me, and a man who could actually feed himself and his family off the land if need be.

I'm not American, but I've noticed that people who are better at talking about the recipe than at wringing the neck of the chicken to prepare supper tend to have the same political affiliation - and that's not the one I'd guess was your grandpa's.

 

[vitanola]

Sounds like a "Realist" to me, and a man who could actually feed himself and his family off the land if need be.

I'm not American, but I've noticed that people who are better at talking about the recipe than at wringing the neck of the chicken to prepare supper tend to have the same political affiliation - and that's not the one I'd guess was your grandpa's.

Of course. In most of the United States the working men were overwhelmingly Democratic between the 1930's and the 1960's, with some regional exceptions, and a higher incidence of Repulicanism amongst Legionaires. My maternal grandfather, born in '98, expert in four trades (machinist, metal spinner, bronze casting, architechtural metalwork) a man who was out of work for two years in the early Depression, and then used his last thousand dollars in savings to move across the country to find work, ann who seven years after the move purchased a suburban house FOR CASH, who retired at 65, and then returned to work for another seven years, because he had nothing to do at home, would not have voted Republican if a gun were put to his head, as he "had had quite enough of all that Hoover Prosperity in 1931 and 1932.

My paternal grandfather, on the other hand was an industrialist, a large manufacturer of locks. He grew up in rural Norhtern Ohio in the eighteen seventies and 'eighties, at a nime when none but the ne'er-do-wells in his area would vote Democratic. He was Republican through and through until the 1932 election, when he voted for Roosevelt and a democratic congressional slate. He voted Democratic in '36, too, voted for Wilkie in '40 ("When I voted for Roosevelt I didn't know that he was running for Emperor") voted for Roosevelt in 1944, Truman in '48, Eisenhower in '52 and '56. He did not live to see the 1960 electoral contest

The ethnicity of you grandfather and the place where he lived would be helpful in determining his likely voting pattern, as these were much stronger determinants in the old days than they are today.

 

[1961MJS]

Hi

It will be VERY interesting if you can find out his party affiliation. My Maternal grandfather was to the right of Pat Buchanan, but was the Democratic County Chairman. He's the one I describe as "So Baptist, he didn't like to have sex because it might lead to Dancing." My great disappointment was that he died in 1979, far too soon to have heard Bill Clinton's blue dress discussions. I have several neighbors in Illinois in similar situations, seriously conservative, but life long Democrats.

I'm pretty conservative, but was a registered Democrat when we lived in Alabama. Before Clinton, if you wanted to vote in much of the South, you had to vote in the Democratic Primary. I now live in Kansas, where the Republican party is the big one. Many of our Republicans are far to the left of the Alabama Democrats.

The truth don't always match the label...

 

[Captain Neon]

I think if you want to know more about your grandfather, it would make more sense to talk with those still alive that knew him. Diaries and other primary sources are far preferable than labeling some one by any sort of political affiliation. There are so many different reasons why people vote for one political party over an other that to judge a person's beliefs off a political party platform is fraught with error. I have yet to find a political party, even among the plethora of minour parties, where one platform plank can define all of their members and supporters. Political party platforms are largely public relations documents, and no political party, regardless of claims of principle over politics, requires their candidates to be in agreement 100% with all planks. The nicest thing that can be said about party platforms are that they are living documents that a small group of doctrinaires spend hours and hours of convention time arguing about, and every one else could care less about. Parties endorse candidates all the time that support very little of the actual platform. The ugly truth is that among the two majour parties there is really no difference between the candidates they each elect; that is why it is so common to see party switches when one political party gains control of a house of a legislature. A Democrat that switches to Republican and back again has not had a change in beliefs to match the political platform, it is just that party platforms are largely irrelevant. As a point of reference, in 1994 when Democrat Ben Jones ran against Republican Newt Gingrich, Jones campaigned as more conservative than Gingrich with voting records to prove it. By all accounts Jones is more "conservative" than Gingrich, but due to party affiliation most people would assume that Jones more liberal than Gingrich. You might as well find out if your grandfather cheered for the Giants or the Jets for all the difference it makes.

 

[Atticus Finch]

My grandpa has been deceased since the '70s. We however have his NYC voter registration card from 1963 and presumably he voted. On the card, it does NOT list his party affiliation. Would there be any way to find out what he was registered as, and even perhaps who he voted for, or what elections he voted in? I ask because it'd be a way of getting to know the man's beliefs without being able to ask him.

All jurisdictions record their voters’ party affiliations and in which elections they voted. This is one of the ways that pollsters such as Rasmussen and Gallop are able to develop samples drawn from likely voters as opposed to simply sampling from the general population. But there would be no records of which issues on a given ballot a voter left blank and there would be no records of which candidates a voter chose in a given election.

But your question is about someone who was voting in the sixties and seventies. I fear that records that old may be difficult or impossible to retrieve. The folks at your local board of elections would be able to answer for sure.

AF

 

[dhermann1]

Sure sounds like he would have been a Dem, but I guarantee you you can't find out who he voted for. There is no way to associate a given voter with the vote he or she cast. That's why there's a curtain in front of the booth, and why you don't sign your ballot. The secret ballot is one of the most fundamental bedrocks of democracy.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Eisenhower brought a lot of New Deal Democrats into the Republican party -- especially blue-collar types who thought Stevenson was too much of an egghead. Disregarding the Taft wing, 1950s Republicanism had a lot in common with the beliefs of Rooseveltian Democrats. A lot of these moderate Eisenhower Republicans remained GOP voters until '64, when Goldwater pushed them out -- many either then returned to the Democratic party or went independant.

So, if I had to guess, Roosevelt in '32, and '36, possibly Willkie in '40 depending on whether he was an isolationist or interventionist before the war, Roosevelt in '44, Truman in '48, Ike in '52 and '56, Kennedy in '60, Johnson in '64, and Nixon in '68. That's a pretty typical voting pattern for someone of the demographic type you describe.

 

[Atticus Finch]

A lot of old Dems down here...folks my parents' age...are fond of saying that they never left the Democratic Party. It was the Democratic Party that left them. Though my father was a life-long Democrat, even he admitted that his beliefs were more in line with what was then being espoused by the Republican core. *

* I’m trying to avoid spawning political discussion by only addressing things that occurred four or five decades ago. I’ve already been given the stink-eye once this week. Much more and the mods will make me go stand in the corner.

AF

 

[Atticus Finch]

...Kennedy in '60, Johnson in '64, and Nixon in '68. That's a pretty typical voting pattern for someone of the demographic type you describe.

These three I remember and...at least with respect to my family...you hit the nail on the head.

AF

 

[LizzieMaine]

Another factor to keep in mind is that not only do party labels change but so do ideological labels -- ardent New Dealers could and did go on to support Nixon in 1968 and 1972 -- not because they had abandoned their early beliefs but because what was liberal and progressive in 1936 had become completely mainstream and even a bit conservative in 1968. In the eyes of many people born between 1910 and 1930, Nixon was in fact the last true New Deal president, and they found him far more palatable than the alternatives, especially after the chaos of the 1968 convention.

 

[dhermann1]

Brilliant analysis, Lizzie. Spot on.

 

[Atomic Age]

The classic example of a New Deal Democrat who became a Republican is Ronald Reagan. His parents were Democrats as was he was from the time he could vote. He was the president of his labor union. (the screen actors guild) He lead the union through the labor disputes with the studios in the 50's

It's said that his slow change to Republican began in the when his life was threatened by a small faction of the teamsters who were in reality communist, that were actively seeking to take over the unions in the entertainment industry. (Contrary to what people may have thought at the time they were far more successful at infiltrating the White House than the entertainment industry.)

Of course he became the ultimate symbol of conservative politics, but to hear him tell it, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me." In fact so many Democrats voted for Reagan, that they called them Reagan Democrats.

Doug

 

[FedoraFan112390]

You could argue Reagan was the last President who had nothing against the New Deal and didn't seek to dismantle it. He even wrote angrily in his diary about critics accusing him of wanting to do away with the New Deal. He bristled at the accusation--he saw little wrong with the New Deal except perhaps bureaucracy. He felt that the Great Society was what needed to be dismantled, but that the New Deal were overall a series of good reforms--Hence why he helped save Social Security in the early '80s.

 

[LizzieMaine]

You could argue Reagan was the last President who had nothing against the New Deal and didn't seek to dismantle it. He even wrote angrily in his diary about critics accusing him of wanting to do away with the New Deal. He bristled at the accusation--he saw little wrong with the New Deal except perhaps bureaucracy. He felt that the Great Society was what needed to be dismantled, but that the New Deal were overall a series of good reforms--Hence why he helped save Social Security in the early '80s.

Reagan certainly professed a reverence for FDR, and had supported the New Deal wholeheartedly in the 1930s. But by the time he became President, his views were much more influenced by what's come to be called "neo-liberalism" than a genuine New Deal philosophy, and much of his economic program -- especially his views on banking deregulation -- would have drawn serious frowns from FDR himself.

Where Roosevelt and Reagan had a lot in common, though, was their personalities -- probably no other chief executives were more skilled at stimulating public confidence, or at communicating their views thru the mass media. Reagan consciously patterned himself after FDR in this respect, and that ability helped to earn him the support of many of the surviving members of the generation that had voted for Roosevelt. (Except my grandmother, who declared she'd sooner vote for Robert Cummings.)

 

[MisterCairo]

Sure sounds like he would have been a Dem, but I guarantee you you can't find out who he voted for. There is no way to associate a given voter with the vote he or she cast. That's why there's a curtain in front of the booth, and why you don't sign your ballot. The secret ballot is one of the most fundamental bedrocks of democracy.

I've always been fascinated by the American tradition of formally (and publicly) registering as a party member/supporter/whatever it amounts to. In Canada, you register as a voter, period. "You are 18 years of age or older, a Canadian citizen, and you live at such and such an address which puts you in such and such a riding".

What party you may be a signed-up member as is not recorded publicly, as it is a private matter.

 

[Atticus Finch]

What party you may be a signed-up member as is not recorded publicly, as it is a private matter.

It is necessary because we have primary elections in our system. Depending on the state, one must declare his party affiliation thirty to ninety days before the primary election to vote in that primary. If one registers as independent, he or she cannot vote in a primary unless there is an independent candidate running. Later, in the general election, any registered voter can vote for any candidate on the ballot…regardless of party.

One of the reasons for requiring early party registration is to help frustrate attempts to hijack elections. In other words…and by way of example only…Democrats might be tempted to vote in a Republican primary for a weak Republican candidate, hoping to nominate that person and make their Democratic candidate comparatively stronger in the general election.

AF

 

[1961MJS]

I've always been fascinated by the American tradition of formally (and publicly) registering as a party member/supporter/whatever it amounts to. In Canada, you register as a voter, period. "You are 18 years of age or older, a Canadian citizen, and you live at such and such an address which puts you in such and such a riding".

What party you may be a signed-up member as is not recorded publicly, as it is a private matter.

Hi

I don't keep up much the Canadian politics, but how are the party's candidates picked in Canada? The US only does parties on voter ID because the various Party's primary system using the same polling places etc, as the governmental elections.

Later

 

[Captain Neon]

Primaries are a relatively new invention, and one need not register for a party to vote in the general election or non-partisan primaries. I'll not get in to my opinions about primary elections, as that would be political. There are still some US states, Minnesota being one of them, that do not have party registration and party candidates are chosen by party delegates to conventions. I have yet to find a state that REQUIRES one to state a party preference to register to vote. In fact, there are two obscure political parties that have the word Independent in their names. These parties have majour party status in their respective states, and have voter registration numbers that are substantially higher than the vote totals that their state-wide candidate receive in elections. The logical conclusion is that there is a significant number of California and Nevada voters that thought they were registering without a party affiliation, but checked the box for Independent in stead. Recently, a former California AIP chairman admitted that the party's numbers were inflated due to California voters that registered AIP because they thought they were registering independent. The Nevada IAP shrilly proclaims that their voter registration numbers are legitimate despite obvious evidence to the contrary. Both the AIP-CA and the IAP-NV, despite having voter numbers less than 1%, continue to have ballot access when other minour parties have precincts that regularly elect their party members to office. There are areas of Minneapolis that the Democrats and the Greens are the two majour parties while the Republican Party is a distant third. However, since the Republican Party is considered a majour party their legislative candidates need only pay a filing fee, but a Green candidate has to gather signatures to get on the ballot. I'll stop now. I am bordering on a political discussion. US politics nowadays has more in common with choosing sides for the Super Bowl than with principles and beliefs. Despite all of the grandstanding and rhetoric, there is really very little difference in how the two majour parties in the United States govern or their philosophies. Elect a Democrat or elect a Republican, it makes very little difference in the end.

 

[LizzieMaine]

Primaries were not common at all during the Era -- from the thirties to the sixties, they were only used in twelve states. Primaries were most common in the South, as a sideways play to get around the Fifteenth Amendment -- the so-called "white primary system," in which black voters were prevented from participating in the nomination of candidates. Since the South was essentially a one-party region during that period, if you couldn't vote in the primary, your vote was meaningless. White primaries began to feel Constitutional pressure during the war, however, and the Supreme Court finally declared them unconstitutional.

During the Era, presidential nominations were generally decided by delegate votes at the conventions -- the days of the famous "smoke filled rooms." The modern primary system only came into being in the 1970s, and is purely a matter of party convenience -- there's no precedent or requirement for it anywhere in the Constitution.