Weighted Voting For Congress

[jimrtex]

Here's a TX plan based on jimrtex's suggestion. Everything fits the range. Is a district from El Paso to Corpus going to survive a plebiscite?

This is Muon's proposal.



Central Texas 3875K
Rio Grande 3468K
West Texas 2901K
Fort Worth 3080K
Dallas 3616K
East Texas 4114K
Houston 4092K

Alternative Names

San Antonio-Austin
Borders

I wanted Rio Grande to retreat back towards Corpus Christi, and to trim a bit off the Dallas and Fort Worth districts.  But that would likely have pushed the East Texas district over the maximum limit, plus sprawling from Texarkana to Victoria.  So instead I created a district comprised of Dallas and Tarrant counties, equivalent to the Harris County district, and then created a Northeast and Southeast districts, that include the DFW and Houston suburbs as well as satellite cites.



Southeast Texas 3326K
Houston 4092K
Dallas-Fort Worth 4177K
Northeast Texas 3196K
Central Texas 3859K
West Texas 3354K
Rio Grande 3140K

History

Texas was 25th in its first census in 1850.  By 1870 it was 20th and gained a 2nd district.  It surged to 7th in 1890 and gained a 3rd district.  It reached 5th in 1910, and gained its 4th district in 1920.   It dropped back to 6th in 1940, but still gained a 5h district in 1960.  It advanced to 3rd in 1980, and added its 6th district in 1990.  It moved to 2nd in 2000, and added a 7th district in 2010.

Utah entered the Union in 40th place, it was still 40th in 1940, and has since crept upward to 34th.

Vermont entered the Union in 13th place, and dropped every census through 1930 when it was 45th.  In managed to hold onto 45th in 1940 and 1950, then began to drop again until it was 48th in in 1970.  It kept that until 2000, when Alaska passed it.  Thus Vermont has never gained a position, and has only held a position for few decades at a time.

[jimrtex]

Edit: Left Portsmouth out of Tidewater in Plan 3, Winchester city out of Southern Virginia Plan 2 and 3.

I agree that VA was a challenge and it would have been much easier with three districts since then NoVa could sit by itself, but population needs require more. The SW is the least like the rest of central and southern VA, and has the natural connection along I-81 to the Shenandoah Valley.

As for Virginia, that's pretty much the explanation I was expecting, and I guess my rejoinder would be that, for all the SW is somewhat dissimilar to the rest of south and central VA, it's far more dissimilar to NoVA.  I'll also refer again to media markets, which I've been leaning on for some of the maps here, and which seem to indicate that perhaps Roanoke and Lynchburg shouldn't be separated:



Taking those regions (and their concordance with metro areas, UCCs, etc.) as building blocks, it seems easiest to sort them roughly as thus:



Deviations 865,177.  One could possibly put the Charlottesville area in the north, which would lower the deviations.

The internal deviation of Train's plan is fine, but the population of his Southern Virginia exceeds the national limit.  So I added the Charlottesville media marker to NoVa, and started adding counties to the south, trying to keep out of the Lynchburg and Richmond areas.  If you do that, you use smaller counties (because they are remote from those cities, and you eat up a lot of rural territory.  So instead, I added the area between the Potomac and the York.  This area is large enough that it might get some attention as a rural COI.



Northern Virginia 3492K
Southern Virginia 4509K

The problem in Virginia is finding an area to go with the Washington suburbs, which are atypical of a southern state, yet provide an increasing share of the population.  In the first map, rural areas were added to the Washington suburbs to barely get the remainder of the state under the maximum.  It can be thought of as a minimalist Nova.

The next plan adds the Richmond-Petersburg area, while releasing the Shenandoah Valley.  It keeps the Charlottesville area, which provides a more compact district.



Northern Virginia 4196K
Southern Virginia 3806K

The population of the two districts is more balanced, and Richmond provides somewhat of a counterbalance to the Washington area.

The 3rd map replaces the Richmond and Charlottesville areas with the Hampton Roads area.  The Northern Virginia region might better be called Tidewater or Chesapeake-Potomac, and the other region, Western Virginia or Piedmont-Mountains.



Northern Virginia 4413K
Southern Virginia 3588K

History

In 1790, Virginia included present day West Virginia and Kentucky, and was the most populous state by far.  Its population relative to the 2nd largest, Massachusetts (including Maine), 175% was the greatest ever relative size of the 1st and 2nd largest states.  California relative to New York in 1990 was the next largest at 162%.   Since Texas took over as the 2nd largest, the gap has been closing.

1790 Virginia had 5 districts.  Perhaps one included everything west of the Blue Ridge.  When Kentucky became a state, its area would have been removed from the district, which would have continued with a reduced weight throughout the rest of the decade.

In 1820, New York surpassed Virginia to became the largest state.  In 1830, Virginia dropped behind Pennsylvania and lost its 5th district.  In 1840, fell behind Ohio, and in 1850 dropped to 3 districts.  Virginia still included West Virginia, so it is likely that there would still be a western district.  In 1860, Illinois pushed Virginia to 5th place.

The loss of West Virginia during the Civil War dropped Virginia to 10th place, and two districts.  By now, Virginia was a a quite ordinary largely rural southern state, and by 1910 had dropped to 20th place behind Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Alabama, with Mississippi closing.

It maintained its 20th place ranking through 1930, when it slowly began to climb aided by the development of Norfolk as a major port and the expansion of the Washington suburbs.  Virginia has ranked 12th the past 3 censuses.

In 1870, Virginia had 277% times the population of West Virginia.  By 1940, this had been reduced to 141%, and it would not have been totally out of the question to speculate that a coal-based industrializing West Virginia would someday surpass its bucolic rural parent.

But the collapse of underground coal has dispatched that illusion.  West Virginia in 2010 has fewer people than 1940, and Virginia has 432% its population.

[jimrtex]

Edit: Left Portsmouth out of Tidewater in Plan 3, Winchester city out of Southern Virginia Plan 2 and 3.

I think the first of your three Virginias is clearly the best- it seems to me like Richmond and Tidewater probably ought to stay together.

I generally approve of your compromise PA as well; perhaps a few rural counties (such as Clearfield, Elk, and the like) could also be shifted from the West to the Northeast to lower deviations if necessary.

Two more.

The first is Muon's Washington to southwest.



Northern Virginia 4045K
Southern Virginia 3956K

I then shifted Charlottesville, Lynchburg, and Danville into the area to give the southwest more weight.  It puts both sides of the Blue Ridge into the district.  The downside is I had to pull the Fredericksburg area, including Stafford out of the district to get it under the national maximum.



Northern Virginia 4423K
Southern Virginia 3578K

[jimrtex]

The original guidelines implied that shape was not as important as CoI, and that equality wasn't so important as long as the limits were enforced.

You may have inferred as such.

I had certain instances in mind with regard to connectivity and contiguity (eg Washington and Massachusetts). 

In the case of Washington, going over the northern Cascades might well provide a better shape.  Placing Whatcom with Walla Walla and Vancouver might well represent a stronger CoI from certain viewpoints (Seattle vs rest of state).  Given that Snohomish, King, and Pierce have a majority of the population, it does not necessarily make sense to extend outward to include the entire northwestern part of the state.

I had originally stated the population rule to be based on each state.  But for the purposes of the test, we want national parity, and it is important to keep it within a 2:1 range, with some possible exceptions.  You seem to treat the smaller states as extending the range, while I see them as exceptional. 

In reality, a national legislature would be larger, and a state legislature would have multi-county districts.   I also have a constraint of the program that I am using to calculating voting power.

A state would quite likely have a county entitled to just over 1-1/3 members.  The problem then is whether to make it one of the largest districts; or have two districts but coerced equality to keep both within the statewide range.   The local exception that would provide for a slight increase in internal equality; and permits a hard apportionment rule, rather getting in disputes over whether the county should have two districts or one district based on how well the county could be divided.  But this makes districting national, rather than local (which is one of the advantages of weighted voting), and likely would be a political issue.

Imagine if an argument were made to add a 3rd district to Virginia for COI reasons.  Would the entire legislature be expanded, or would a rearrangement be made in some other state?

That made a lot of sense given the goal of testing weighted voting, which should feature some population disparities to create a strong test. Yet, it seems that many of the revised plans are looking more and more like they are driven by shape, even at the expense of extra UCC splits. That seems to belie the importance of CoI, and it makes me wonder if the exercise becomes more about the districts and how they would be created, and less about generating data for a test of weighted voting.

An important aspect of weighted voting would be its impact on districting.  There is no justification for doing it other than for making the districting process better.  Hudson uses weighted voting so as to not to have to redistrict.  Columbia and other counties in New York use it to avoid splitting or combining towns.  I see utility in weighted voting in permitting voters to participate in the districting process in an effective and meaningful way.  Holding hearings and then writing a report that explains why hyper-strict equality rules require so and so, and to justify top-down political district does not.

My rules said that a plan might be be subject to plebiscite, so justification would be presented to the electorate, rather than a court or commission.

Drawing maps helps me understand them better, and it is useful me to have the districts in a spreadsheet with county populations, which facilitates further exploration.

You would have to be more specific about which states you are thinking about.  There is no hard and fast definition for CoI.

A geologist might draw your Pennsylvania map, would a demographer, or would the public?

Your Missouri map was an interesting exercise to see if the two major cities on opposite edges of the state could be placed in the same district.  Would the public vote for it, or an east-west split?

I don't understand any reason to put the east and west coasts of Florida together.  That is one case where I think you are wrong, rather simply a case of two different viewpoints.

You didn't comment on my Texas plan.  I don't see a reason to come from the border up nearly to Houston, and having the Houston suburban counties then stretching up to Texarkana, while cutting out Sherman, Greenville, and Corsicana.  So I split DFW into 3 districts rather than two.  But the two eastern districts have comparable definitions: suburbs plus groups of smaller cities which in some sense are satellites of DFW and Houston.

Virginia is a challenge.  The Washington suburbs don't have enough population, so any plan is going to be an agglomeration of the interests.  So I proposed several alternatives:

(1) Washington suburbs plus enough areas to get the population of the other districts below the maximum, trying to avoid Richmond and Roanoke.

(2) Washington suburbs and Richmond, the nearest population center.

(3) Washington suburbs and Hampton Roads.  There is somewhat of a CoI, but you can't claim that the district was shapely.

(4) Washington suburbs, Valley of Virginia, and the southwest.  Other than being able to drive on the interstate I don't see a single CoI.

(5) Extending the district eastward to include a mountain CoI.  Remember, the Waltons lived east of the Blue Ridge.

[jimrtex]

This is more illustrative of process, than a preferred district.



The core area of Seattle-Tacoma is formed by the three counties of Snohomish, King, and Pierce.  Kitsap would also be included were it not isolated by Puget Sound (Vashon Island and the Olympic Peninsula portion of Pierce are included to avoid splitting counties).

Puget Sound 3440K
Washington 3285K

This split is the most population-balanced, and really isn't that much different than the divisions of Arizona, Colorado, and Minneapolis, all states that gain a 2nd district largely on the basis of a large dominant metropolitan area.

Adjacent to the three-county core there are 4 peripheral areas, which can be treated somewhat independently.

Northern: Skagit, Whatcom, Island, and San Juan.
Kitsap: Bremerton's county.
Thurston: Olympia's county.
Olympic Peninsula: Mason, Jefferson, Clallam.

Along with the core area, they can be formed into 16 combinations of additions.  Four of these would be eliminated, because they would include the Olympic Peninsula, but not Kitsap, leaving Kitsap isolated.  Inclusion of the Olympic Peninsula is thus dependent on inclusion of Kitsap.

Inclusion of all four areas would put put the remainder of the state under the minimum, so it is also eliminated.

Population splits:

Core Only: 3440/3285.
Core+T: 3692K/3032K
Core+K: 3691K/3034K
Core+KO: 3853K/ 2871K
Core+KT: 3943K/2781K
Core+KTO: 4105K/2619K
Core+N: 3852K/2872K
Core+NT: 4104K/2620K
Core+NK: 4103K/2621K  Muon's plan.
Core+NKO: 4265K/2459K
Core+NKT: 4356K/2969K
Core+NKTO: 4517K/2207K  Out of range.

Alternative Names

Puget Sound, Seattle-Tacoma, Seattle
Washington, Evergreen State, Columbia

I kind of like "district of Columbia (WA)"

History

When Washington entered the Union it was more populous than 8 states, plus two that would enter soon after: RI, VT, OR, DE, NV, SD, ND, MT, (ID, WY), the latter two entered after the 1890 census date.  Entering at 34th, Washington was still 30th in 1940.

During and after WWII, Washington began to boom, jumping to 24th in 1950, and to 23rd in 1960 when the second district was added.  It has steadily advanced since then reaching 13th in 2010.  Washington has never lost a place in the ranking, and has gained at least one place every census since 1940.

Washington is one of three states that have never lost a place in the rankings, Alaska and California being the other two.  Washington and Arizona's current streaks of consecutive ranking gains (7, from 1940 to 2010), are tied for 2nd best ever with California (1880-1950).  If Washington or Arizona gain a place in the rankings by 2020, they would tie the record streak of Florida (1910-1990).

There are several other current streaks: Colorado, 6 since 1950; Oregon 5 since 1960; Georgia 4, since 1970; and Alaska 3, since 1980.  Nevada only gained at a 35% rate during the 2000-2010 decade and had its streak snapped at 4.

Only two states have ever passed Washington in the rankings between censuses, Florida is one of them.  The other is quite surprising.

In 1790, West Virgina was part of Virginia, and along with present-day Kentucky formed part of Virginia's 5 districts.  West Virginia and Kentucky had about half the population of Connecticut, the smallest single-district state.  After Kentucky's separation, West Virginia would continue to form part of a district within Virginia.

Virginia had 5 districts until 1820.  During this period, West Virginia had roughly the population of an average Virginia district, and would likely been in a district west of the Blue Ridge.

1790: 34% of average Virginia district (37% after separation of Kentucky).
1800: 44% of average district.
1810: 54% of average district.
1820: 64% of average district.

Virginia lost its 5th district in 1830, but due to the increasing share of the population in West Virginia, the district would have been lost in the east.  During the 1830's the remainder of the state lost population, but I suspect Western Virginia would have just become the largest district.

1830: 58% of average district.
1840: 72% of average district.

Virginia lost its 4th district in 1850, but again the lost would have occurred in the east:

1850: 64% of average district.
1860: 71% of average district.

During the Civil War, the representative from Western Virginia continued to sit in Congress, and even after West Virginia statehood, would have continued to vote for his eastern constituents as the eastern boundary of the state was not settled.

After separation West Virginia had its own district.  Development of the coal industry brought growth to the state.  Between 1860 and 1930, the population increased by 4.5 times (2.2% annual rate of growth).  It would not have been totally rash to speculate when (not if) West Virginia would surpass the parent state in population.  West Virginia was only about 300,000 behind the smallest 2-district state of Mississippi.

But then population growth stalled and then reversed.  West Virginia reached its peak population in 1950, and in 2010 had fewer persons than 1940.  By 1970 it had less than half the population of the smallest 2-district state of Alabama, and in 2010 is closing in on having 1/3 the population of the smallest such state (Colorado).

[jimrtex]

WI (2)
   Winebago (WI) 3221K [-0.4]
   Dells (WI) 2466K [+6.2]

Lake Michigan 2466K
Wisconsin 3221K

I could see trimming off the 5 rural counties north of Green Bay.  They don't really fit with the urban counties on the shoreline, or in the Lake Winnebago-Fox River valley.  Also possibly, Walworth and Jefferson, which have only recently seen a jump in population.

The obvious alternative is a north-south split.



Northern Wisconsin   2654K
Southern Wisconsin   3123K

Sheboygan could possibly moved south, while some of the western counties could move north.

Alternative Names

Badger State, Dairyland, Western Wisconsin, Eastern Wisconsin

History

Wisconsin entered the Union at 24th in 1850.  It reached 15th in its second census in 1850, at which time it received a 2nd district.

In 1960 it was also ranked 15th.   In between it ranged from 16th in 1880 to 13th from 1900 to 1940.

In 1970 it dropped to 17th, which was its 2nd lowest ranking ever, and has subsequently dropped to 20th.  So for the last 40 years, Wisconsin has had its 2nd lowest ranking ever.

From 1850 to 2010, Wisconsin has been comfortably in the middle of states with two districts.

Wyoming has never been ranked above 3rd from the bottom.  It was 2nd from last from 1900 to 1950 ahead of Nevada.  In 1960, the entry of Alaska moved it to 3rd from the bottom, but it dropped behind Nevada in 1970, and Alaska in 1990 to become the smallest state.

[jimrtex]

Sorry about not completing this sooner.  The voting weight is the population divided by 2000 rounded to the nearest integer.   The range of errors is 0.803%; the mean absolute error is 0.166%; the standard deviation 0.188%; and the RMS error 0.172%.  All of these are quite small and in an acceptable range, particularly if compared to the apportionment error.


District                            Vote   Swing      Pop%    Power%   Error
Alabama                             2390  7.45E+28   1.548%   1.553%   0.34%
Brooklyn (NY)                       2368  7.38E+28   1.534%   1.539%   0.33%
South Carolina                      2313  7.21E+28   1.498%   1.503%   0.30%
Tampa Bay-Gulf Coast (FL)           2293  7.14E+28   1.485%   1.489%   0.28%
Louisiana                           2267  7.06E+28   1.468%   1.472%   0.27%
Southern Virginia                   2254  7.02E+28   1.460%   1.464%   0.24%
Inland Empire (CA)                  2216  6.90E+28   1.436%   1.439%   0.22%
Western New York                    2214  6.90E+28   1.434%   1.437%   0.22%
Northern California                 2201  6.85E+28   1.426%   1.429%   0.21%
Kentucky                            2170  6.76E+28   1.405%   1.409%   0.22%
San Francisco Bay (CA)              2168  6.75E+28   1.404%   1.407%   0.21%
Dallas-Fort Worth (TX)              2089  6.50E+28   1.353%   1.355%   0.18%
Cleveland-Northeast Ohio            2068  6.44E+28   1.340%   1.342%   0.14%
City of Los Angeles (CA)            2067  6.43E+28   1.339%   1.341%   0.14%
Illinois                            2065  6.43E+28   1.338%   1.340%   0.13%
San Joaquin Valley (CA)             2064  6.42E+28   1.337%   1.339%   0.12%
Puget Sound (WA)                    2052  6.38E+28   1.329%   1.331%   0.15%
Central Florida                     2051  6.38E+28   1.328%   1.330%   0.15%
Houston (TX)                        2046  6.37E+28   1.326%   1.327%   0.12%
Silicon Valley-Central Coast (CA)   2016  6.27E+28   1.306%   1.307%   0.14%
Middle&West Tennessee               2009  6.25E+28   1.302%   1.303%   0.10%
Philadelphia (PA)                   2004  6.23E+28   1.298%   1.300%   0.09%
North Jersey (NJ)                   2001  6.22E+28   1.296%   1.298%   0.09%
Hudson Valley & North Country (NY)  1971  6.13E+28   1.277%   1.278%   0.10%
Pittsburgh-Western Pennsylvania     1945  6.05E+28   1.260%   1.261%   0.10%
Detroit (MI)                        1932  6.01E+28   1.252%   1.252%   0.08%
Central Texas                       1929  6.00E+28   1.250%   1.250%   0.05%
Oregon                              1916  5.96E+28   1.241%   1.242%   0.09%
Valley of the Sun (AZ)              1909  5.94E+28   1.236%   1.237%   0.09%
Columbus-Central Ohio               1908  5.93E+28   1.236%   1.237%   0.06%
North Florida                       1899  5.90E+28   1.230%   1.231%   0.04%
Indianapolis and Southern Indiana   1899  5.90E+28   1.230%   1.231%   0.07%
Oklahoma                            1876  5.83E+28   1.215%   1.216%   0.07%
Southeast Florida                   1873  5.82E+28   1.213%   1.214%   0.05%
Boston (MA)                         1820  5.66E+28   1.179%   1.179%   0.05%
Cincinnati-Southern Ohio            1792  5.57E+28   1.161%   1.161%   0.00%
Connecticut                         1787  5.55E+28   1.158%   1.158%   0.00%
Atlanta (GA)                        1770  5.50E+28   1.146%   1.147%   0.02%
Piedmont (NC)                       1762  5.47E+28   1.142%   1.141%  -0.03%
Chicagoland (IL)                    1753  5.45E+28   1.135%   1.135%   0.01%
Northern Virginia                   1746  5.42E+28   1.131%   1.131%  -0.02%
New York City (NY)                  1720  5.34E+28   1.114%   1.114%  -0.01%
Appalachians (NC)                   1684  5.23E+28   1.091%   1.090%  -0.06%
West Texas                          1677  5.21E+28   1.086%   1.086%  -0.04%
Southeast Texas                     1663  5.16E+28   1.077%   1.077%  -0.05%
Michigan                            1650  5.12E+28   1.069%   1.068%  -0.05%
Eastern Missouri                    1634  5.07E+28   1.059%   1.058%  -0.09%
Lake Michigan (WI)                  1611  5.00E+28   1.043%   1.043%  -0.05%
Cheasapeake (MD)                    1600  4.97E+28   1.037%   1.036%  -0.10%
Northeast Texas                     1598  4.96E+28   1.035%   1.034%  -0.09%
Potomac (MD)                        1587  4.93E+28   1.028%   1.027%  -0.10%
South Georgia                       1583  4.91E+28   1.026%   1.025%  -0.10%
Rio Grande (TX)                     1570  4.87E+28   1.017%   1.016%  -0.11%
San Diego (CA)                      1548  4.81E+28   1.003%   1.002%  -0.07%
Twin Cities (MN)                    1531  4.75E+28   0.992%   0.991%  -0.13%
Iowa                                1523  4.73E+28   0.987%   0.986%  -0.12%
Orange County (CA)                  1505  4.67E+28   0.975%   0.974%  -0.12%
North Georgia                       1491  4.63E+28   0.966%   0.965%  -0.11%
Mississippi                         1484  4.61E+28   0.961%   0.960%  -0.10%
Arkansas                            1458  4.52E+28   0.944%   0.943%  -0.13%
Massachusetts                       1454  4.51E+28   0.942%   0.941%  -0.15%
Los Angeles South (CA)              1444  4.48E+28   0.936%   0.934%  -0.16%
Kansas                              1427  4.43E+28   0.924%   0.923%  -0.11%
Long Island (NY)                    1416  4.39E+28   0.918%   0.916%  -0.17%
San Gabriel & Antelope Valleys (CA) 1398  4.34E+28   0.906%   0.904%  -0.14%
Utah                                1382  4.29E+28   0.895%   0.894%  -0.15%
Western Missouri                    1360  4.22E+28   0.881%   0.880%  -0.17%
Eastern Michigan                    1360  4.22E+28   0.881%   0.880%  -0.16%
Nevada                              1350  4.19E+28   0.875%   0.873%  -0.19%
Chicago (IL)                        1348  4.18E+28   0.873%   0.872%  -0.15%
Northern Indiana                    1343  4.17E+28   0.870%   0.868%  -0.17%
Coastal (NC)                        1321  4.10E+28   0.856%   0.854%  -0.18%
Washington                          1311  4.07E+28   0.849%   0.848%  -0.15%
Arizona                             1287  3.99E+28   0.834%   0.832%  -0.22%
Miami (FL)                          1285  3.99E+28   0.832%   0.831%  -0.17%
Colorado                            1270  3.94E+28   0.823%   0.821%  -0.17%
Cook County (IL)                    1250  3.88E+28   0.809%   0.808%  -0.16%
Denver (CO)                         1245  3.86E+28   0.806%   0.805%  -0.19%
Wisconsin                           1233  3.82E+28   0.799%   0.797%  -0.19%
South Jersey (NJ)                   1225  3.80E+28   0.793%   0.792%  -0.17%
Central Pennsylvania                1224  3.80E+28   0.793%   0.791%  -0.22%
Northeastern Pennsylvania           1178  3.65E+28   0.763%   0.761%  -0.22%
Central Jersey (NJ)                 1170  3.63E+28   0.758%   0.756%  -0.23%
East Tennessee                      1164  3.61E+28   0.754%   0.752%  -0.21%
Minnesota                           1121  3.48E+28   0.726%   0.724%  -0.20%
New Mexico                          1030  3.19E+28   0.667%   0.665%  -0.22%
West Virginia                        926  2.87E+28   0.600%   0.598%  -0.34%
Nebraska                             913  2.83E+28   0.592%   0.590%  -0.31%
Idaho                                784  2.43E+28   0.508%   0.506%  -0.30%
Hawaii                               680  2.11E+28   0.441%   0.439%  -0.36%
Maine                                664  2.06E+28   0.430%   0.429%  -0.37%
New Hampshire                        658  2.04E+28   0.426%   0.425%  -0.38%
Rhode Island                         526  1.63E+28   0.341%   0.340%  -0.41%
Montana                              495  1.53E+28   0.320%   0.319%  -0.30%
Delaware                             449  1.39E+28   0.291%   0.290%  -0.36%
South Dakota                         407  1.26E+28   0.264%   0.263%  -0.40%
Alaska                               355  1.10E+28   0.230%   0.229%  -0.41%
North Dakota                         336  1.04E+28   0.218%   0.217%  -0.47%
Vermont                              313  9.69E+27   0.203%   0.202%  -0.34%
Wyoming                              282  8.73E+27   0.183%   0.182%  -0.32%