Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 07, 2016, 07:27:40 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 302
51  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Urban County Clusters - Delineations on: November 22, 2016, 06:00:25 pm

The characterization which we (muon2 and myself) have used is based on the population within the urbanized areas within the county. In the case of Lancaster County, this includes 397K in the Lancaster Urbanized Area, and 5K in the Philadelphia Urbanized Area, for a total of 402K in urbanized areas (the total and percentages were based on actual values, then rounded).


makes sense.  Thank you.


I don't know whether you have been following the redistricting discussion mostly between Muon2, Torie, and myself, but a goal is to have congressional districts constructed primarily from counties, and to have objective criteria for comparing different plans.


also makes sense, but good luck getting that through the PA legislature.  Here's a map for a typical congressional district:



pretty creative, don't you think?  (The area labeled Salisbury Heights is probably where the 5000 people live who are not in the Lancaster MSA but in the Philadelphia MSA.)

In 2014 the Pubs in the OH legislature realized they may not hold the legislative trifecta indefinitely. They put together a bipartisan compromise that didn't help them keep their 2010 gains, but insured that the reverse couldn't happen. It passed as a constitutional amendment in 2015.

OH didn't have all the fine details of our system, but they headed in some of the right direction. The question is whether PA will also recognize that missing the Gov and Supremes, it won't necessarily be enough to have the legislature. When they realize that, they too may go for an amendment.
Pennsylvania has a requirement in the state constitution to not split political subdivisions. In Pennsylvania this is a particular challenge since the subdivisions don't necessarily nest, and there are odd collections of units such as boroughs.

Nonetheless, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court overturned the legislature's plan.

If a more relaxed standard of population equality were used it would be easier to apportion Pennsylvania.

You could put 6 districts in the Philadelphia UCC.
Put Lancaster and Lebanon together.
Base a district in Harrisburg.
Go west from York.
One district in the Lehigh Valley.
One district based on Scranton-Wilkes-Barre area.
Three districts in southwestern Pennsylvania.

Divide the remainder of the state into 4 districts that would draw themselves.

52  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Urban County Clusters - Delineations on: November 21, 2016, 02:40:34 am
Good tabulating.  (Lots of time on your hands?)  In most cases I understand the numbers.  This is because the number in the parenthesis match the second number outside it.  For example,

ANCHORAGE, AK 292 (1): Anchorage Municipality (Anchorage, AK 251)  292  251  86%.

Anchorage has one county in the ACC, 251000 county residents live in the UCC, and the county has 292000 total.

But in some cases the numbers do not match.  For example,

LANCASTER, PA 519 (1): Lancaster County (Lancaster, PA 397; Philadelphia, PA--NJ--DE--MD 5)  519  402  77%.

Reading your explanation of the table, I think these numbers should match.  Am I missing something?

An Urban County Cluster is made up of whole counties. So the Anchorage UCC consists of the Anchorage Municipality (a county equivalent in Alaska, which does not have counties).  The Lancaster, PA UCC consists of Lancaster County, which has a population of 519K.

What qualifies a county to be a member of a UCC?

(1) It must be part of a metropolitan statistical area (within a state)
(2) It is characterized as being predominately urban.

The characterization which we (muon2 and myself) have used is based on the population within the urbanized areas within the county. In the case of Lancaster County, this includes 397K in the Lancaster Urbanized Area, and 5K in the Philadelphia Urbanized Area, for a total of 402K in urbanized areas (the total and percentages were based on actual values, then rounded).

402K/519K = 77%.

Lancaster County qualifies as part of an Urban County Cluster based on 77% being greater than 25%, and 402K being greater than 25K.

I don't know whether you have been following the redistricting discussion mostly between Muon2, Torie, and myself, but a goal is to have congressional districts constructed primarily from counties, and to have objective criteria for comparing different plans.

A problem with using counties is that you can end up splitting up a multi-county metropolitan area. For example in the Philadelphia area, you could have districts shooting outward from Chester, Montgomery, and Bucks, and perhaps having the Philadelphia area dominating 8 or 9 districts, rather than the (almost) 6 districts warranted by its population.

An Urban County Cluster is a group of counties that should be kept together in a district (or multiple districts). The lists and maps above are a proof of concept that an objective criteria could be applied on a national basis and produce reasonable results. The Census Bureau produces files of urban areas by county, so it is computationally straightforward with a spreadsheet to produce the lists above.
53  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny on: November 17, 2016, 10:27:01 am
The interaction between the the common council districts and the supervisor districts is problematic:

MHR § 10.1(ii)a(1) states a [... city ...] may set

"The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of its officers and employees, except that cities and towns shall not have such power with respect to members of the legislative body of the county in their capacities as county officers.

A board of supervisors is made up of city and town officers serving in a ex officio capacity (note: "ex officio" does not mean non-voting, though often ex officio officers are non-voting).

What does "such power" mean with respect to city supervisors in their capacity as county officers?

Couldn't one argue that it was Columbia County's fault for setting the election districts for Supervisors in Hudson as wards (which could be changed) rather than the wards as they existed on such and such a date?  Of course the Columbia County BOE wasn't following the actual ward lines entirely anyway.
Somewhere in this thread, I had made the claim that the city and towns had primary authority for election districts, which the CBOE could set if they failed to do so. The city does have a consulting role in setting of polling locations.

The board of elections does not appear to be responsible to anyone. The political parties each nominate a commissioner. If the county legislative body fails to appoint the nominee, then party members on the legislative body may appoint the commissioner for their party. The governor can remove a commissioner, but it sounds messy and hyperpolitical.

I think it is the responsibility of the city to ensure that the board of election follow their ward boundaries. I wouldn't trust the board of elections to get the new lines correct.

The amazing thing is that the board of elections gave a map of ward boundaries to the city which was not only wrong, but not the map the board of elections uses.

Otisfield, Maine moved from the first congressional district to the second congressional district when it switched counties from Cumberland County to Oxford County in 1978 (approved by the Legislature in probably 1977 and ratified in a referendum in November 1977), voting for second district candidates beginning in the June 1978 primary even though the switch didn't go into effect until July 4, 1978.  The state law delineating the districts mentioned the counties in each district (none were split at the time, and the difference in 1970 was a few thousand people but that was down from about 40,000 in 1960 and (Maine had not redrawn its congressional districts after the apportionment decisions) so the Legislature just let things be until 1983 and no one challenged it), so when Otisfield changed counties, it changed districts.

I'm the person who e-mailed the chief maintainer of Otisfield's GenWeb site about when Otisfield changed congressional districts (that site already had info about Otisfield's succession from Cumberland County), by the way, and the text on the page I provided a link to may have been an exact copy of her reply to me after going to the town office and researching.  That was several computers and e-mail addresses ago for me, though.
Some of these things are just done, and become de facto changes. Ohio's apportionment law was based on districts of whole counties. Since weighted voting was used, district boundaries were only changed for cause (a multicounty district being split once it could elect two senators, or a district being merged into another when it didn't have enough population for a senator). When Ohio's newest county was created, it spanned a senate district line, and thereafter, the senate district split the county.

In Hudson, it is possible that some of the incorrect ward boundaries were due to a map reading error. New York did not participate in the VTD program until 1990. Since VTD's correspond to election districts, not wards, the state board of elections was likely involved. "send us the maps of your election districts". This would have been in the mid-1980s, so Columbia County would not have any sort of GIS program. They would take paper maps, mark them up and send them to Albany.

Some clerk would realize that they didn't match the census geography, and made adjustments, reducing 7 election districts (Ward 3 used to have 2) into 3 VTDs. The boundary between the 4th and 5th wards kind of followed Harry Howard so they followed that. But the VTD boundary comes down to Prospect before going over to 5th Street. So I'm guessing that someone was confused by the block north of Washington, which the Census Bureau doesn't consider to be a block.

Maybe someone made a mistake with Columbia Turnpike, and then when they got an official looking census map decided that it must be right.

The CBOE knew the boundary between the 4th and 5th wards was not on Harry Howard and simply ignored that. The houses that were between Underhill Pond and Harry Howard are numbered up to 86.

There are two houses further up Harry Howard at 106 and 126 that are included in Ward 4 by the board of elections. Perhaps they were included in Ward 4 as a matter of convenience or so they would be in the same ward as the Firemen's Home across the road. The actual ward boundary is barely past 86. There is an undeveloped lot that would be in Ward 5. So the concept could have developed that those houses out on Harry Howard were in Ward 4. At one census, the enumerator for Ward 4, enumerated a couple of houses on Harry Howard, and then wrote that they were in Ward 5. AFAICT, the Census Bureau ignored the note and included them in the Ward 4 population.

There may have been a house located where Crosswinds is now. Crosswinds includes 88-98 Harry Howard Avenue. If 106 was considered to be in Ward 4, and 86 is in Ward 4, then clearly 88-98 Harry Howard Avenue must be in Ward 4.

The supervisor for Ward 4 was absolutely certain that Crosswinds was in Ward 4, and may actually believe that it was built where it was so it could be in Ward 4, rather than simply one of very few locations suitable for building an apartment complex (you could do in the older part of the city, but that would mean knocking down existing buildings).
54  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Adding Bernie Sanders to the totals? on: November 16, 2016, 02:56:48 pm
Here's from the Oregon SoS website:

When write-in votes are cast in Oregon, they are counted by a process laid out in Oregon law. A voter can write-in a person's name on the ballot and the vote will count. The write-in votes will be tallied together except if the total number of write-in votes equals or exceeds the number of votes cast for any candidate printed on the ballot of the same office, then the tally will show the total number of votes for each write-in candidate.

The impact of a write-in candidate receiving more votes than either major Presidential party nominee whose electors are already assigned has never been evaluated under applicable Oregon and Federal law since this has not arisen in any previous Presidential election. If such a situation should arise, the Elections Division will take appropriate steps to resolve the question prior to the convening of those electors 30 days after the election.


It looks like the SOS misread or misquoted the statute (ORS 254.500). Parts of the first paragraph quote the statute verbatim, but skip the part that is bolded. Perhaps they were focused on the second part of the question.

Quote from: ORS 254.500
254.500 Tally of write-in votes. (1) This section governs the tally of votes cast for persons whose names were not printed on the ballot but are written in by electors. All such write-in votes for each office on the ballot shall be tallied together, except as follows:
 (a) If the total number of write-in votes for candidates for the same nomination or office equals or exceeds the number of votes cast for any candidate for the same nomination or office on the ballot who appears to have been nominated or elected, the county clerk shall tally all write-in votes cast for the office to show the total number of votes cast for each write-in candidate.
..."

ps Johnson and Stein are (or were) tied in Multnomah County with 12,594 votes.
55  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Adding Bernie Sanders to the totals? on: November 16, 2016, 02:34:44 pm
That's where I'm at for Oregon, but at least results are being counted much quicker for the GE than the 2016 Primary.... took me almost three weeks to get the 100% "unoffical" final results from Oregon, and once the official ones are posted I find out that Bernie unofficially won the one county he "lost" because there were two write-in Bernie votes from Indies or Reps that wrote him in... Sad

Map still looks weird with that one small county in the Grain Belt of Oregon along the Columbia River.

I can see why they didn't count those two votes. So, you were able to get a break down on all of the write in votes? Did Lincoln Chafee get any write in votes?

I'm about halfway through the 2008 results on Atlas for CA and almost all counties do have Ron Paul's votes listed (only 2 out of 30 or so didn't). I think we'll get pretty good results this time, but we'll just have to be patient.
The Secretary of State has vote totals for all write-in candidates in 2008 and 2012 by county. There is a possibility that Trinity in 2012 and Del Norte in 2008 did not report write-ins.

But California is unusual in that it permits slates of write-in elector candidates, without the permission of the presidential candidate (the same is true for all elector slates, The California Democratic Party did not have to have Clinton's consent to have her name appear on the ballot).
56  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Adding Bernie Sanders to the totals? on: November 16, 2016, 02:06:03 pm
This is actually an interesting subject, compared to some of the other threads on the Forum these days that have descended us the usual squabbling....

In Oregon, there appears to be an almost historic number of write-ins, about 3% of the total statewide vote, and higher than Steins 2%, and only slightly lower than Johnson's 4%.

Unfortunately we won't know who these write-ins were for, unless the SoS certifies the election results next month, however it appears to be statewide and transcends the traditional partisan affiliations of heavily Democratic and Republican counties.

What I suspect is that a significant chunk of these are Bernie votes, who won 35/36 counties in the Democratic Primary, and possibly some Mormon voters writing in McMullen, where especially in Eastern Oregon you have many counties that are 10%+ Mormon, as well as a smaller but significant statewide population.

I know that Donald Duck will usually win about 1,000 votes in Oregon, regardless of whomever is running for President, and some people write in themselves but..... it is absolutely crazy to have 3% write-in votes in Presidential Election out here....
ORS 254.500 would appear to forbid tallying write-in votes for individual candidates.
57  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Adding Bernie Sanders to the totals? on: November 16, 2016, 01:45:28 pm

Will Bernie Sanders' write-in votes be broken out from the total scattered write-in votes? 

I know that's generally not done, but it is unusual to have a draft write-in winning 5%+ of the vote in a single state.
It depends on the state. Some states only count votes for official write-in candidates. In Texas, the presidential candidate must file, and include the vice-presidential candidate and 38 elector candidates, each of whom must give their consent.

In other states, a party or slate of electors may file, but they require the consent of the presidential candidate.

In California a slate of elector candidates may file, and designate a presidential candidate without his consent, and there is a Sanders write-in slate in California.

In Washington, write-in votes are counted, but they are not tabulated to individual candidates unless it has an impact on an election. This is primarily to check that apparent write-in votes, undervotes, and overvotes are not actually votes for an on-ballot candidate. Washington does permit write-ins for undeclared write-in candidates, as long as the office and candidate are clear. Since there is a space for write-in candidates for each office, a vote for [X] Write-In "Sanders" under presidential candidate would be clear if he had filed in Washington. But there are 1000s of Sanders in this country. Why should it be assumed that it is a vote for some elderly person in a tiny state in New England?

The SOS is not reporting write-ins, but King County has 2.58% and Pierce County 3.09%.
58  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Popular vote total on: November 16, 2016, 12:28:15 pm

More people voted for Hillary. More people wanted Hillary to be president.

Only a very stupid person doesn't know this.

Hardly anyone wanted Mrs. Clinton to be president.  Perhaps 5% of the population.
59  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: City of Hudson's weighed voting system under scrutiny on: November 15, 2016, 11:58:39 am
Hudson Proposition 1 (the "Fair and Equal" referendum) passed overwhelmingly, with slightly different numbers in the Register-Star and the blog The Gossips of Rivertown.  According to a results breakdown in the Gossips entry, it prevailed in every ward and in both sections of the fifth ward, albeit by only 8 votes in precinct 5-2 which I imagine is the one Torie called heavily Pub somewhere way back in this thread (probably largely the Boulevards).  I don't know what ward voters in Crosswinds would have been counted as voting in in this election, if their voting in the wrong ward has been fixed yet.

I've read some chatter online that the existing council (with the weighted vote) will vote to send a referendum for all aldermen being elected at large (thus repealing the "Fair and Equal" plan) in an April referendum, that it will pass and that the interests currently behind Doc Donohue will bankroll a majority in the new council, which will apparently include Abdus Miah who I wouldn't think of as being on Doc Donohue's (or Rick Scelara's) "team" (although he was opposed to the "Fair and Equal" proposal).

What do you, jimrtex, think will happen?
(Unofficial) Election results are available on the Columbia County (NY) Board of Elections web site. The Gossips blog appears to have pasted from their results.

AFAIK, the voting precincts were not changed. Perhaps Torie was out challenging the right to vote on Tuesday? The two election districts in Ward 5 are really odd. There is a state law that sets a maximum number of registered voters in an election district, so Ward 5 has to have two election districts. It appears that they did a east-west split, perhaps to equalize voters.

5-1 is the area between N 5th Street and N 6th Street AND the triangular area north of Paddock Place, between Harry Howard and the eastern city limits. 5-2 is the Boulevards and the areas along Green Street. But with Crosswinds treated as part of Ward 4, and ED 4-1, this divides 5-1.

5-2 is really not Republican. Clinton carried it C60:T34:O6. Clinton carried Hudson C72:T22:O6. Trump carried the remainder of the county, T49:C45:O6.

It is typical practice to combine polling locations. In Hudson, 1-1, 2-1, and 3-1 voted at one location; 4-1 at another; and 5-1 and 5-2 at a third. This was common throughout the county, and I suspect throughout the state. There is probably some sort of patronage or corruption involved.

The number of registered votes for the proposed wards W1:825; W2:620   W3:751 W4:643 and W5:   761.

In terms of votes cast/ward resident the yield for Ward 1 is 61% greater than for Ward 2. You might recall the least change alternative would have divided Ward 5 into two wards, expanded wards 3 and 4 to the west, and created a west end ward across Warren Street. But because of the turnout differential, you have to have a district that is 62%:38% population split, to have equal number of votes.

This is one reason that the misallocation of Hudson Terrace for the current weights, and the cracking of Hudson Terrace under the new plan is so pernicious.

There is a provision in the Municipal Home Rule law that forbids changes in the structure of a local government more than once per decade beginning with '0'. There is an exception for changing voting weights. I think I recall a case where the changes took effect in year XXX0, though approved prior to that date, that were accepted. So I think a referendum to change to at-large elections may violate that.

See MHR § 10.1(ii)a(13)(f)

It is conceivable that there could be a second change before the first takes effect. I'd think that at-large elections would run afoul of the Voting Rights Act, unless there was some proportional system. If it is possible to make a second change, then they could approve a different map. But I am dubious that they can do so.

Since the current voting weights are unconstitutional, violating equal protection (14th Amendment) the Voting Rights Act, and the 15th Amendment, they could be changed regardless of any mere state or city law.

The Free and Equal people were dishonest in their presentation about the constitutionality of the current weighted voting plan, but that does not make their substitute plan illegal or unconstitutional.

Their petition may have been illegal, in that it apparently did not present the text of the proposed law to the signers of the petition.

MHR §  37.1 and 37.2 make it quite clear that it is the signers of the petition that are proposing the new law, and that their petition should carry the full text of the proposed law. This is fully consistent with the concept of an initiative producing legislation. If the Common Council did not pass the identical bill as proposed, the petitioners could gather more signatures.

MHR § 10.1(ii)a(13)(a)(iii) provides that an apportionment plan "shall provide substantially fair and effective representation for the people of the local government as organized in political parties."

This is an affirmative obligation on the city. The group proposing the plan was overwhelmingly Democratic, and included the vice-chair of the Hudson Democratic Party.

The legislation or the ballot summary did not mention the election of supervisors or any effect on its voting powers. There is a case from Suffolk County where an initiative to switch to weighted voting was blocked because it did not specify the actual voting weights, but only provided the methodology of their calculation.

There is an additional problem in that the current supervisor voting weights (for the whole county) violate equal protection (OMOV) because of the method by which they were calculated.

The interaction between the the common council districts and the supervisor districts is problematic:

MHR § 10.1(ii)a(1) states a [... city ...] may set

"The powers, duties, qualifications, number, mode of selection and removal, terms of office, compensation, hours of work, protection, welfare and safety of its officers and employees, except that cities and towns shall not have such power with respect to members of the legislative body of the county in their capacities as county officers.

A board of supervisors is made up of city and town officers serving in a ex officio capacity (note: "ex officio" does not mean non-voting, though often ex officio officers are non-voting).

What does "such power" mean with respect to city supervisors in their capacity as county officers?

Did any of the other changes related to wards requires a fiscal note?
60  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Mr. Illini maps 2016 on: November 14, 2016, 10:23:55 pm
And Orland Township voted to secede.  Won't happen, obviously.

Secede from what?  Cook County?  To join what?

The question asked if Orland township should secede from Cook and be transferred to Will county. Orland townshpi is largely served by three municipalities - Orland Hills, Orland Park and Tinley Park. Orland Park and Tinley Park are partially in Will. The referendum was approved with 54% in favor, but like similar referenda in 2009 from some NW Cook townships, no one expects this to move as legislation.

I was looking at the Illinois Constitution, which provides that the legislature should make provision for changes, splits, mergers, etc.

But the statutes seem to only require a petition trigger an election. Other than the change would require approval by the whole of both Cook and Will counties, I didn't see an obstacle to the referendum.

There is a provision that a change couldn't leave the county line less than 10 minutes from the county seat, and another that defines a county seat as the boundaries of the containing city. The northeastern corner of Orland might disqualify the change.

Is that why special legislation is required.

Splitting of counties seems relatively easy. It is surprising that nobody has suggested creation of the City and County of Chicago. North Cook and South Cook might become Lincoln and Obama counties.

I believe in the 1990's there was a legislative proposal to divide Cook into 5 counties, one of which would be the city of Chicago.
I was looking through the county results on CNN and came across a county called "Chicago", but they also had entries for "Cook Suburbs", and "Cook", so it looks like they recognized both the two BOE, and the political subdivision.

When I was searching for a township map of Cook County, I noticed that Cicero and Berwyn and a couple other areas were townships. Was that a result of a process that permitted townships to be divided, but that was later abandoned? Is all of Illinois surveyed as part of the PLSS?

I'd think there would be friction between Chicago and the remainder of Cook County over funding services.
61  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Dave's Redistricting App Changes on: November 14, 2016, 10:09:10 pm
Is there any kind of organized effort to make election results data more widely and easily available? Has there ever been? It really is a disgrace that the only way to compile anything resembling a complete national map at the sub-county map is by corresponding with thousands of county clerks and boards of elections.

Harvard Election Data Archive
62  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Mr. Illini maps 2016 on: November 13, 2016, 11:31:21 pm
And Orland Township voted to secede.  Won't happen, obviously.

Secede from what?  Cook County?  To join what?

The question asked if Orland township should secede from Cook and be transferred to Will county. Orland townshpi is largely served by three municipalities - Orland Hills, Orland Park and Tinley Park. Orland Park and Tinley Park are partially in Will. The referendum was approved with 54% in favor, but like similar referenda in 2009 from some NW Cook townships, no one expects this to move as legislation.

I was looking at the Illinois Constitution, which provides that the legislature should make provision for changes, splits, mergers, etc.

But the statutes seem to only require a petition trigger an election. Other than the change would require approval by the whole of both Cook and Will counties, I didn't see an obstacle to the referendum.

There is a provision that a change couldn't leave the county line less than 10 minutes from the county seat, and another that defines a county seat as the boundaries of the containing city. The northeastern corner of Orland might disqualify the change.

Is that why special legislation is required.

Splitting of counties seems relatively easy. It is surprising that nobody has suggested creation of the City and County of Chicago. North Cook and South Cook might become Lincoln and Obama counties.
63  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / States Voting Together For President on: November 13, 2016, 02:57:17 am


The six Obama-Trump states broke up some long term pairings:

MI+CT had been together since Roosevelt's 4th term (18 elections).

CT will have to make due with CT+ME since 1964 (14 elections)
MI has been with fellow switcher PA since 1980 (an astonishing 10 elections)

WI+NY had been together since 1972 (11 elections).

NY+MA have now been together since 1976 (11 elections)
WI+(PA+MI) have been together since 1992 (7 elections)

PA+DE had been together since 1972 (11 elections)

PA+MI have now been together for 10 elections.
DE has now been with 6 other Reagan-Bush 41-Democrats ever since for 10 elections.

OH+NV had been together since 1980 (9 elections)

OH+FL have been together since 1996 (6 elections)
Ohio has voted for the Electoral College winner for 14 elections (since 1964), Florida is next with 6.

NV+(CO+VA) have been together since 2000 (5 elections)

IA+NM had been together since 1992 (6 elections)

IA+(OH+FL) have been together since 2000 (4 elections)
NM+(NV+CO+VA) have been together since 2000 (4 elections)

FL+OH+NV had been together since 1996 (5 elections)

Longest streak is AL+MS since 1844 (44 elections and 176 years).

Odd Couples:

CA+VT since 1952 (17 elections)
MN+DC since 1976 (11 elections)
NC+IN since 1980 (10 elections)
MT+GA since 1984 (9 elections)

Lone Wolves:

IA, NH, and NM have not voted with any other state more than 4 elections.
64  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maps of Current State Houses and Senates on: November 11, 2016, 10:21:30 pm

After 2016

State Senates



In Hawaii, EVERY state senator is a Democrat, literally 100% control. The next closest state to that is Wyoming, which is 90% Republican (27 to 3). Connecticut and Delaware have Democratic control due to their Governor/Lt Governor, but the numbers of Republicans and Democrats are tied.

D Pickups: NV, WA
R Pickups: IA, MN

State Houses



D Pickups: NV, NM
R Pickups: KY

Is Illinois a midwestern state?
65  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Maps of Current State Houses and Senates on: November 11, 2016, 10:16:41 pm
Didn't the Democrats take the Alaska House through a coalition or something?

According to ballotpedia the Republicans have 21 to Democrats 17 and 2 Independents, so at maximum its 21/19, unless they're wrong, then I'll correct.

In the past Alaskan Native Democrats from the interior have caucused with the Republican Party. Some (all?) of these were defeated in the primary.

Three Republicans representatives have announced that they will form part of the "majority" caucus, which along with the two independents will give the "majority" a 22-18 advantage. Of the three Republicans, one was given the chair of the House Rules Committee, and the other chair of the House Finance Committee.

A Democratic senator has joined the majority caucus, giving them overwhelming control of the Senate.

If you flip the Alaska House, you also have to flip the Washington senate.
66  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion / 2016 U.S. Presidential Election / Re: Election Night - do early votes get counted before other votes? on: November 06, 2016, 05:29:06 am
How does this work?  do the first numbers we see from a state come strictly from the early vote?
In Texas, early votes can be counted on election day.

Over half of votes are early votes. You can early vote at any early voting location in a county. Large counties have dozens of early voting locations. Voting is on DRE, so all they have to do is put some cartridges in a vote counting machine.

Mail ballots can also be counted. In Harris County, only about 10% of early voting is by mail, and 2/3 of those had been returned by Monday two weeks ago, so they should be processed for signatures and the ballots pulled, so that they can be scanned on Tuesday.

Texas reports early voting as 1 precinct in each county, even though they will be canvassed by election precinct. So on election night, you will see for Harris County, with 1 of 1000+ precincts reporting, about 1 million votes counted. If someone is basing their reports on percentage of precincts, they will say that with 0.1% of precincts reporting.

So by 7:15 CST you will have votes in from 1/2 of Texas.

Polling place voting has to wait to any lines to finished off, and then the cartridges will have to be physically transported to the central counting center, so there will be a long gap after the first votes are reported.
67  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: How do Portuguese Americans vote? on: November 01, 2016, 07:27:25 pm
An interesting report about how 5 Portuguese American voters view both sides.

http://observador.pt/especiais/o-que-pensa-o-donald-trump-portugues-e-outros-quatro-emigrantes-das-eleicoes/


I only translated the first one, and he is quite typical of persons born in Portugal. They are overwhelmingly concentrated in New Bedford and Fall River. It is a quite atypical pattern compared to other countries, particularly European, which almost invariably have a primary concentration in New York City.

Also about half of those who report they were born in Portugal reported that they were born in the Azores. In the US Census, place of birth is a write-in, and there are codes for many internal areas, which the Census Bureau can tabulate various ways. So it is likely that the person responded "Azores" rather than "Portugal - Azores" or was prompted by a census taker, who followed up with a question of 'Would that be from the Azores, or on the mainland?'

There is a strong difference between New Bedford and Fall River in this regard, with New Bedford respondents to be more likely to report Azores, though the two cities have about the same number of Portuguese and the same total population.

My understanding is that a great number of Azoreans come to the US via the mainland. Perhaps they migrate to Lisbon, and don't feel at home, and so emigrate.

So maybe the questions should actually be: "How do Azoreans in southeastern Massachusetts vote?"

There is a much smaller concentration of Portuguese Americans in the Central Valley of California. They might be more Republican because of their political success.
68  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Steady Staten on: November 01, 2016, 02:20:15 pm
National Trends and Projections (Eastern US).

There are 26 States predominately east of the Mississippi (i.e. excluding Louisiana and Minnesota).

906 of 1605 counties (56.6%) are estimated to have lost population between 2010 and 2015.

Gainers

The 26 States have 72 counties which have the longest streaks of gaining population every census. 62 of these streaks are being extended based on 2015 estimates.

1790

40 counties have gained population every census since 1790 (13 original states, plus Maine, Kentucky, West Virginia, Vermont, and Tennessee).

Maine (1 county), New Hampshire (1), Massachusetts (4), Connecticut (2), New York(3), New Jersey(2), Pennsylvania(9), Maryland (2), Virginia(1), North Carolina (10), South Carolina (1), Georgia (1), Tennessee (3).

Six of the 40 counties are estimated to have lost population for the current decade:

New Haven, CT -0.3%
Monmouth, NJ -0.3%
Burke, NC -2.3%
Surry, NC -1.3%
Wilkes, NC -1.2%
Greene, TN -0.4%

From Statehood

Six States have counties that have gained every census since the first census after statehood. Overall, 23 of 25 counties are in the process of extending their streaks.

Ohio since 1810: 3 of 3 have gained in the current decade.

Indiana since 1820: 2 of 2 have gained in the current decade.

Alabama since 1820: 4 of 4 have gained in the current decade.

Michigan since 1840: 3 of 3 have gained in the current decade.

Florida since 1850: 4 of 5 have gained in the current decade.

Putnam, FL -3.1% is down.

Wisconsin since 1850: 7 of 8 have gained in the current decade.

Racine, WI -0.2% is down.

After Statehood

In seven states, the county with the longest streak began some time after statehood. In all seven states, the longest streak is by a single state. Overall 5 of the 7 streaks are being extended.

Delaware since 1810

West Virginia since 1830

Kentucky since 1830

McCracken, KY -0.8% would be replaced by Fayette, KY (up since 1860)

Illinois since 1830

Vermont since 1880

Mississippi since 1910

Rhode Island since 1920

Washington, RI -0.4% would be replaced by Providence, RI (up since 1980)

Losers

1900 (2): Illinois (2, state leaders, and national leaders east of the Mississippi River).

1910 (0): None.

1920 (1): Michigan (1, state leader)

1930 (1): Mississippi (1, state leader)

1940 (16): Alabama (3, state leaders); Georgia (1, state leader); Illinois (1); Kentucky (2, state leaders); Michigan (2); Mississippi (4); Pennsylvania (2, state leaders), West Virginia (1, state leader).

1950 (3, 1 is up this decade): Maryland (1, state leader); Mississippi (1); West Virginia (1).

Baltimore city, MD is up +0.1%

1960 (13, 3 are up this decade): Illinois (2); Indiana (1, state leader); Alabama (1); Maine (1, state leader); New York (1, state leader); Ohio (1, state leader); Pennsylvania (2); Virginia (2, state leaders); West Virginia (2);

Allegheny, PA is up +0.6%
Portsmouth independent city, VA is up +0.7%
Cabell, WV is up +0.5%

Counties with streaks of four decades or less are only listed if they are the state leader(s). In 2020, streaks beginning in 1970 will qualify for the national list.

1970 (19, 2 are up this decade): Georgia (1); Illinois (1); Indiana (4); Massachusetts (1, state leader); Michigan (1); New York (4); Ohio (6); Virginia (1);

Chattahoochee, GA is up +0.9%
Hamilton, OH is up +0.7%

Counties with streaks starting in 1980 are state leaders only.

1980 (9, in 4 states): New Hampshire (1, state leader); Virginia (5, state leaders among counties); North Carolina (1, state leader); South Carolina (2, state leaders).

In Virginia, 3 independent cities have longer streaks than any county.

1990 (1, in 1 state) Rhode Island (1).

2000 (34, in 5 states, 5 are up this decade): Florida (2); New Jersey (2); Vermont (3); Tennessee (8); Wisconsin (19);

Monroe,FL is up +6.0%
Pinellas, FL is up +3.6%
Essex, NJ is up +1.7%
Florence, WI is up +0.9%
Menominee, WI is up +8.1%

Two states had no county lose population in 2000:

Connecticut, last loss was in 1980 in one county.
Delaware, last loss was in 1920 in two counties.

2010

Potential new streaks for state leaders starting in 2010.

Connecticut, no counties lost in 2000, but 6 counties are down this decade.
Florida, two counties were down in 2000, but both are up this decade; 20 other counties are down this decade.
69  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Steady Staten on: November 01, 2016, 04:38:49 am
Wisconsin Losers

Only three counties lost population between 1970 and 1980, and all three lost again between 1980 and 1990, making the longest (and only) losing streaks: Douglas (since 1940), Lafayette (since 1960), and Milwaukee (since 1970). Milwaukee was the only county to lose between 1990 and 2000, but it gained between 2000 and 2010.

This results in 19 counties that lost between 2000 and 2010 becoming the state leaders. Four counties are superlative in losing most decades over the past century, while three had their first loss since formation. 14 are in the northern part of the state, four (Buffalo, Green Lake, Manitowoc, and Wood) are in the central part, and one (Crawford) is in the south.

Ashland (6 of 10 decades down over past century)
Buffalo (7 of 10 down)
Burnett
Crawford
Door
Florence
Forest
Green Lake
Iron (6 of 10 down)
Langlade
Lincoln
Manitowoc
Marinette
Menonimee (first loss since formation in 1970)
Oneida (first loss since formation in 1890)
Price
Rusk (6 of 10 down)
Washburn
Wood (first loss since formation in 1860)

No Changer

Pepin has had seven thousand and something population for the past 12 censuses, since 1900, including 7,481, 7,450, 7,462, 7,477, and 7,469 in 1920, 1930, 1950, 1980 and 2010, respectively. The range of 31 over those five censuses represents 0.42% of the average of the five. Pepin is on the Mississippi River between La Crosse, and St.Paul, MN.
70  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Steady Staten on: October 30, 2016, 08:33:37 pm
Trends and Projections (2015 estimate)

This looks at the 2015 estimates and projects whether current streaks will be broken.

Maine

11 of 16 counties are down.

Cumberland (up since 1790) +2.9%

Aroostook (down since 1960) -4.5%

New Hampshire

4 of 10 counties are down.

Hillsborough (up since 1790) + 1.5%

Coos (down since 1980) -5.6%

Vermont

10 of 14 counties are down.

Chittenden (up since 1880) +3.1%

Essex (down since 2000) -2.3%
Rutland (down since 2000) -3.1%
Windsor (down since 2000) -1.6%

Massachusetts

3 of 14 counties are down.

Bristol (up since 1790) +1.5%
Norfolk (up since 1790) +3.8%
Plymouth (up since 1790) +3.1%
Worcester (up since 1790) +2.6%

Berkshire (down since 1970) -2.6%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Berkshire (down since 1970) -2.6%

Rhode Island

4 of 5 counties are down.

Washington (up since 1920) -0.4%

Newport (down since 1990) -0.6%

Providence would become new long term gainer (since 1980)

Connecticut

6 of 8 counties are down.

Fairfield (up since 1790) +3.4%
New Haven (up since 1790) -0.3%

Hartford (last loss was 1980) +0.2%

Fairfield would become sole gainer since 1790.

Litchfield (-3.3%), Middlesex (-1.0%), New Haven (-0.3%), New London (-0.8%), Tolland (-0.8%) and Windham (-1.6%) would become longest losers (since 2010).

New York

43 of 62 counties are down.

Orange (up since 1790) +1.3%
Richmond (up since 1790) +1.2%
Suffolk (up since 1790) + 0.6%

Niagara (down since 1960) -1.8%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Chautauqua (down since 1970) -3.1%
Chemung (down since 1970) -2.0%
Erie (down since 1970) +0.4%
Oneida (down since 1970) -1.0%

New Jersey

9 of 21 counties are down.

Gloucester (up since 1790) +1.1%
Monmouth (up since 1790) -0.3%

Cape May (down since 2000) -2.6%
Essex (down since 2000) +1.7%

Gloucester would become sole gainer since 1790

Cape May would become sole longest loser (since 2000)

Pennsylvania

43 of 67 counties are down.

Berks (up since 1790) +0.9%
Bucks (up since 1790) +0.3%
Chester (up since 1790) +3.4%
Cumberland (up since 1790) +4.6%
Dauphin (up since 1790) +1.8%
Franklin (up since 1790) +2.7%
Lancaster (up since 1790) +3.3%
Montgomery (up since 1790) +2.4%
York (up since 1790) +1.8%

Cambria (down since 1940) -5.1%
McKean (down since 1940) -2.4%
Allegheny (down since 1960) +0.6%
Lawrence (down since 1960) -3.3%

Allegheny would drop from national leaders list.

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Beaver (down since 1970) -1.0%
Warren (down since 1970) -3.4%

Delaware

0 of 3 counties are down.

New Castle (up since 1810) +3.4%

Kent (last loss was 1920) +6.9%
Sussex (last loss was 1920) +9.4%

Maryland

7 of 24 counties are down.

Baltimore county (up since 1790) +3.2%
Washington (up since 1790) +1.5%

Baltimore city (down since 1950) +0.1%

Allegany (-3.4%), Caroline (-1.5%), Dorchester (-0.7%), Garrett (-2.1%), Kent (-2.0%), Somerset (-2.7%), and Talbot (-0.7%) would become longest losers (since 2010).

Virginia

48 of 95 counties, and 12 of 38 independent cities are down.

Campbell, including Lynchburg (up since 1790) +3.4%

Alleghany*, excluding Covington (down since 1980) -3.5%
Alleghany, including Covington (down since 1980) -3.9%
Buchanan (down since 1980) -5.5%
Dickenson (down since 1980) -5.0%
Highland (down since 1980) -4.6%

*Alleghany, Covington independent city, and Clifton Forge, former independent city, have all been losing population since 1980.

Fredericksburg independent city (up since 1900) +15.8%

Covington independent city (down since 1960) -5.1%
Portsmouth independent city (down since 1960) +0.7%

Covington would become sole longest loser independent city and county equivalent.

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Martinsville independent city (down since 1970) -1.3%

West Virginia

39 of 55 counties are down.

Berkeley (up since 1830) +7.4%

Ohio (down since 1940) -3.1%
McDowell (down since 1950) -10.3%
Cabell (down since 1960) +0.5%

North Carolina

49 of 100 counties are down.

Burke (up since 1790) -2.3%
Guilford (up since 1790) +6.0%
Iredell (up since 1790) +6.5%
Lincoln (up since 1790) +3.5%
Moore (up since 1790) +6.9%
Orange (up since 1790) +5.6%
Randolph (up since 1790) +0.7%
Surry (up since 1790) -1.3%
Wake (up since 1790) +13.7%
Wilkes (up since 1790) -1.2%

Washington (down since 1980) -6.4%

Pennsylvania would become national leader with most counties gaining every decade since 1790.

South Carolina

21 of 46 counties are down.

Greenville (up since 1790) + 9.0%

Bamberg (down since 1980) -6.9%
Union (down since 1980) -4.1%

Georgia

76 of 159 counties are down.

Richmond (up since 1790) +0.6%

Clay (down since 1940) -1.3%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Chattahoochee (down since 1970) +0.9%

Florida

20 of 67 counties are down.

Brevard (up since 1850) +4.5%
Duval (up since 1850) +5.6%
Escambia (up since 1850) +4.5%
Hillsborough (up since 1850) +9.7%
Putnam (up since 1850) -3.1%

Monroe (down since 2000) +6.0%
Pinellas (down since 2000) +3.6%

Longest losers would become (since 2010) Bradford (-5.6%), Calhoun (-1.1%), Citrus (-0.1%), Dixie (-1.3%), Gadsden (-0.8%), Hamilton (-3.4%), Hardee (-0.8%), Hendry (-0.1%), Holmes (-3.0%), Jackson (-2.3%), Jefferson (-4.6%), Lafayette (-2.3%), Levy (-2.4%), Liberty (-0.4%), Madison (-4.2%), Okeechobee (-1.3%), Putnam (-3.1%), Taylor (-0.3%), Union (-1.9%), and Washington (-0.8%).

Michigan

54 of 83 counties are down.

Kalamazoo (up since 1840) + 4.0%
Kent (up since 1840) +5.6%
Ottawa (up since 1840) +6.1%

Iron (down since 1920) -4.0%
Gogebic (down since 1940) -6.1%
Ontonagon (down since 1940) -11.4%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Wayne (down since 1970) -3.4%

Wisconsin

40 of 72 counties are down.

Brown (up since 1850) +4.3%
Chippewa (up since 1850) +1.8%
Dane (up since 1850) +7.3%
Marathon (up since 1850) +1.3%
Racine (up since 1850) -0.2%
Sheboygan (up since 1850) +0.1%
Waukesha (up since 1850) +1.7%
Winnebago (up since 1850) +1.5%

Ashland (down since 2000) -1.9%
Buffalo (down since 2000) -2.9%
Burnett (down since 2000) -1.9%
Crawford (down since 2000) -1.5%
Door (down since 2000) -0.8%
Florence (down since 2000) 0.9%
Forest (down since 2000) -2.7%
Green Lake (down since 2000) -1.0%
Iron (down since 2000) -2.1%
Langlade (down since 2000) -3.8%
Lincoln (down since 2000) -2.7%
Manitowoc (down since 2000) -2.0%
Marinette (down since 2000) -2.1%
Menominee (down since 2000) +8.1%
Oneida (down since 2000) -1.2%
Price (down since 2000) -3.6%
Rusk (down since 2000) -4.3%
Washburn (down since 2000) -2.3%
Wood (down since 2000) -1.8%

Ohio

59 of 88 counties are down.

Butler (up since 1810) +2.2%
Franklin (up since 1810) +7.6%
Miami (up since 1810) +1.7%

Jefferson (down since 1960) -3.4%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Clark (down since 1970) -1.7%
Crawford (down since 1970) -3.4%
Cuyahoga (down since 1970) -1.9%
Hamilton (down since 1970) +0.7%
Lucas (down since 1970) -1.8%
Mahoning (down since 1970) -2.9%

Indiana

56 of 97 are down.

Floyd (up since 1820) +2.9%
Monroe (up since 1820) +4.9%

Benton (down since 1960) -2.0%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Blackford (down since 1970) -3.7%
Delaware (down since 1970) -0.7%
Grant (down since 1970) -3.0%
Wayne (down since 1970) -2.8%

Illinois

85 of 102 counties are down.

Sangamon (up since 1830) +0.6%

Stark (down since 1900) -3.4%
Greene (down since 1900) -4.6%
Pike (down since 1940) -2.7%
Carroll (down since 1960) -5.0%
Ford (down since 1960) -2.5%

Potential new to national list (i.e. down since 1970):

Vermilion (down since 1970) -2.9%

Kentucky

66 of 120 counties are down.

McCracken (up since 1830) -0.8%

Fulton (down since 1940) -8.4%
Hickman (down since 1940) -5.9%

McCracken would be replaced by Fayette (up since 1860) +6.3% as longest gainer.

Tennessee

41 of 95 counties are down.

Davidson (up since 1790) +8.3%
Greene (up since 1790) -0.4%
Washington (up since 1790) +2.7%

Benton (down since 2000) -2.2%
Carroll (down since 2000) -2.1%
Clay (down since 2000) -1.1%
Grundy (down since 2000) -1.9%
Hardeman (down since 2000) -4.1%
Haywood (down since 2000) -5.7%
Lake (down since 2000) -3.3%
Obion (down since 2000) -3.7%

Alabama

42 of 67 counties are down.

Baldwin (up since 1820) +11.8%
Madison (up since 1820) +5.5%
Morgan (up since 1820) +0.1%
Shelby (up since 1820) +4.8%

Perry (down since 1940) -8.9%
Sumter (down since 1940) -4.8%
Wilcox (down since 1940) -5.2%
Dallas (down since 1960) -6.1%

Mississippi

60 of 82 counties are down.

Forrest (up since 1910) +1.3%

Bolivar (down since 1930) -2.4%
Humphreys (down since 1940) -7.5%
Noxubee (down since 1940) -4.3%
Quitman (down since 1940) -9.0%
Sharkey (down since 1940) -6.7%
Coahoma (down since 1950) -5.9%
71  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Steady Staten on: October 29, 2016, 03:28:49 pm
Wisconsin acceded to the Union in 1848, the last state east of the Mississippi, excluding West Virginia and northeastern Minnesota.

Only 3 counties lost population in the 1970s, and only 1 in the 1990s, serving as chokepoint on long-term losers. About half of the counties lost population in the 1920s, 1940s, and 1950s, which permitted a large number of long-term gainers. Wisconsin is not as amenable to crop agriculture as Iowa, and the areas that are, in the southern part of the state had enough population to support small towns and local industrialization before agriculture became mechanized. Areas in the north dependent on timbering did not develop large populations, and could gain after conversion to secondary homes and tourism. Lake Michigan permitted development of ports.

When Indiana and Illinois became states, the area that became Wisconsin, much of Upper Peninsula Michigan, and northeastern Minnesota were added to Michigan Territory. The eastern part of Wisconsin was formed into Brown County, with a county seat of Green Bay. The western part of Wisconsin was formed into Crawford County, with a county seat of Prairie du Chien. The boundary was midway on the portage between the Fox River and the Wisconsin River, so that the two counties essentially divided the Lake Michigan and Mississippi Rive areas of interest. Most of Lower Peninsula Michigan, the Upper Peninsula, northern Wisconsin including the Door Peninsula and Lake Superior shoreline, and northeastern Minnesota were in Michilimackinac County.

While part of Michigan Territory, Milwaukee, Iowa, and Chippewa counties were created. Milwaukee was the portion of Brown south of the northern boundary of modern Ozaukee, Iowa was the portion of Crawford south of the Wisconsin River, and Chippewa was along the Lake Superior shoreline including portions of the Michigan Upper Peninsula, northern Wisconsin (from the city of Superior eastward), and far northeastern Minnesota (Duluth and the the Iron Range). The Michigan county of Chippewa, with a county seat of Sault Ste. Marie is the remnant of this county. The Wisconsin county of Chippewa was created much later.

In preparation for Michigan statehood, Wisconsin Territory was created. It included not only the portion of the Michigan Territory east of the Mississippi (the last remnant of the Northwest Territory), but the portion of the Louisiana Purchase east of the Missouri River and north of the state of Missouri, which had been unorganized after Missouri had become a State. Wisconsin Territory then consisted of all of modern, Wisconsin, Iowa, Minnesota, and the eastern parts of the Dakotas.

The Wisconsin territorial legislature met at Burlington, (Iowa) and began creating counties in southeastern Wisconsin in an arc from Manitowoc through Dane and Rock, and in southeastern Iowa. Iowa Territory was created in 1838 from the portion of Wisconsin Territory west of the Mississippi. Had all of Wisconsin Territory become the state of Wisconsin, St. Paul, WI and St. Anthony, WI might have become important river ports, while South St. Paul and South St. Anthony (or perhaps Dakotapolis) would have formed cities on the opposite bank (similar to the Kansas City's, Fargo and Morehead, Louisville and New Albany,  New York City and Hoboken, or Philadelphia and Camden. The capital of the State of Dakota would likely be more centrally located, perhaps around Mankato or Fargo.

By the time of statehood in 1849, the northern part of Wisconsin had been divided among Brown, Portage, Chippewa, St.Croix, and La Pointe counties. Over the next half century, new counties would be formed in this area. Iron and Vilas were not created until 1893, and Gates (now Rusk) in 1901. Menominee was created in 1961, after the federal government had withdrawn recognition of the Menominee tribe (it was later restored in 1973).

Eight Counties Have Gained Since at Least the 1850 Census

Brown since formation in 1820. Brown was created by the Michigan territorial legislature, and covered the eastern part of modern Wisconsin. By 1851, Brown had been reduced to its modern extent. Green Bay is the county seat.

Dane since formation in 1840. Dane was created in 1836 by the Wisconsin territorial legislature. In 1840, the nibble off the northeast corner was part of the creation of Sauk. The county seat, state capital, and location of the University of Wisconsin is Madison. The 1840 population was 314, which increased over 100-fold by 1860.

Racine since formation in 1840. Racine was created in 1836, with Kenosha split off in 1850. The county seat is Racine. The county population is down slightly for this decade.

Sheboygan since formation in 1840. Sheboygan was created in 1836. The county seat is Sheboygan. Since 1930, the county has only had one decade with growth over 10%. It is estimated to be up 0.1% for this decade.

Winnebago since formation in 1840. Winnebago was created in 1840. In 1849 a large extension was added to the north, but by 1856 this had been given to new counties and Winnebago was reduced to its original (and modern) extent. The county seat is Oshkosh. The county has gained 1.5% this decade.

Chippewa since formation is 1850. Chippewa was created in 1845 and included a large area from the Mississippi River to almost Michigan, covering much of the Chippewa River drainage area. It has no direct relationship to Chippewa County, Michigan which at one time included the Wisconsin shoreline of Lake Superior. Over the years portions of Chippewa were detached to create all or part of about a dozen counties, stretching from Buffalo and Trempeleau in the south, to Sawyer and Price in the north. The modern Chippewa is about one-seventh of its maximum size. The apparent loss in 1910 was due to the creation of Gates (now named Rusk). The county seat is Chippewa Falls.

Marathon since formation in 1850. Marathon was created in 1850 and extended to the Michigan boundary in the Upper Peninsula. By 1875 it was reduced to its present extent. The county seat is Wausau. The county has gained 1.3% this decade.

Waukesha since formation in 1850. Waukesha was created in 1846 from the western 70% of Milwaukee. It had modest growth, with an uptick around 1920, and has about quintupled since World War II. The county has gained 1.7% this decade.

Three Counties Have Gained Since Their Formation After 1850

Eau Claire since formation in 1860. Eau Claire was created in 1857. The county seat is the city of Eau Claire. The town of Eau Claire was originally named Clearwater, which is English for Eau Claire.

La Crosse since formation in 1860. La Crosse was created in 1851 much larger in size, but was reduced to its modern boundaries by 1857, before its first census. La Crosse is the county seat.

Outagamie since formation in 1860. Outagamie was created in 1851. Appleton is the county seat.

Five Counties Have Streaks of over a Century, But Had Losses in The 19th Century

Kenosha since 1870. Kenosha was created in 1850, prior to the census, but had a loss between 1860 and 1870. Kenosha is the county seat.

Rock since 1880. Rock was created in 1836 and gained until 1870 before it lost about 200 persons in 1880 (-0.5%). Rock only added 90 persons (+0.1%) in 1990, and is up 0.7% this decade. Rock is on the Illinois line, between Madison and Rockford, Ill. The county seat is Janesville.

Dodge since 1890. Dodge was created in 1836 and gained until 1870 before losing in both 1880 and 1890. Since 1890, Dodge has only had one census above 10%, and is down -0.3% for the current decade. Dodge is between Madison, Milwaukee, and Oshkosh. The county seat is Juneau, name for its founder Paul Juneau. Paul Juneau is the son of Solomon Juneau, one of the founders of Milwaukee (Milwaukee is a merger of the eponymously named Juneautown, Walker's Point, and  Kilbourntown. Juneau was the first mayor of the city. Juneau County, Wisconsin is named for Solomon Juneau. Solomon's cousin Joseph Juneau was a gold prospector who made the first discovery near Juneau, Alaska. Joe Juneau was apparently more easy-going than his partner Richard Harris, and was rewarded when miners named the future capital city Juneau rather than Harrisburgh. Juneau returned the love by buying free drinks.

Fond du Lac since 1890. Fond du Lac was created in 1840 and gained until 1880, before losing in 1890. It is up only 0.3% this decade. Fond du Lac is south of Oshkosh at the southern end of Lake Winnebago (Fond du Lac is bottom of the lake in French). The county seat is Fond du Lac.

Washington since 1890. Washington was created in 1836, with Ozaukee created from its eastern third in 1853. Washington gained until 1870, before losses in 1880 and 1890. Washington grew slowly but steadily until World War II, and has quadrupled in population since, as Milwaukee suburbanization took hold.

Three Counties Suffered Their First Loss Since Formation in 2010

Wood since formation in 1860 until a loss of of 1.1% in 2010. Wood is down 1.8% this decade. Wood is south of Wausau. It appears to be vulnerable to manufacturing losses in its largest cities of Wisconsin Rapids and Marshfield. Marshfield is the largest city if the 5% in Marathon is included. Wisconsin Rapids is the county seat, and has the largest population wholly within the county.

Oneida since formation in 1890. Oneida was created in 1887, and later was reduced by creation of other counties, particularly Vilas. Oneida is in northern Wisconsin, the county seat is Rhinelander. Oneida has considerable seasonal housing. It has 42% fewer households than it has housing units. Perhaps the loss in 2010 was due to permanent residents selling to summer residents, or merchants becoming seasonal themselves.

Menominee since formation in 1961. The county which is coincident with the the Menominee Indian Reservation is northwest of Green Bay. The population grew rapidly from 1970 to 2000, before declining in 2010. The tribe operates a casino in the county seat of Kashena. They are trying to switch to Kenosha which could be attractive to gamblers from Chicago. There is now a casino in Milwaukee.
72  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Largest white Catholic ancestry group by state on: October 28, 2016, 03:16:44 pm
Louisiana is 15.9% French (or French Canadian) ancestry, 4.8% Italian ancestry.
Mississippi is 2.7% French ancestry, 1.9% Italian ancestry.

Orleans Parish, LA is 6.8% French ancestry, 4.2% Italian ancestry.
Jefferson Parish, LA is 18.4% French ancestry, 10.8% Italian ancestry.

This is of course declared ancestry. Many of those putting down their ethnicity as American in NOLA are quite likely to be of French heritage. Especially in Jefferson.

I've always wished the census would get rid of the American ethnicity.

I'd rather go the other way and remove ethnicity except where required for the VRA. At one time the Census only asked for the place of birth and that seems fine. In our melting pot society after three generations there are relatively few people who are of only one country of origin and it doesn't tell us much in Census statistics.

The ACS asks about ancestry, not the census. Why intentionally cripple such an deep and interesting source of data?

Because as Al points out it is inconsistent and often misleading for that reason. To me the ACS is part of the Census. The ACS replaced the long form of the decennial Census with rolling annual and multiyear averages, but it is still the same organization and data type.
I like the current proposals to roll race, ethnicity, and ancestry into a single question. It is more neutral as to what the data will be used for. Thus Irish, Swedish, and Italian would be subcategories of White, just as Puerto Rican, Mexican, and Salvadoran are subcategories of Hispanic, and Haitian and Afro-American could be subcategories of Black.
73  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Name Game on: October 27, 2016, 11:07:18 pm
I think the last president may be Harding?
Harding County, NM was named on the date of the president's inauguration.

One of the last state treasurers of Texas was Warren G Harding. He was born in 1920, and his father's last name was Harding, so naturally they name their son after the new president. He was followed by Jesse James as state treasurer.
74  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Name Game on: October 27, 2016, 07:44:23 pm
Which state has the most counties named after Presidents?  Without doing any real research, I'd guess Nebraska.
Quite possibly.

Iowa has 11 counties named after 12 presidents, with Adams apparently named after both father and son. But Polk was the current president and Taylor was not yet president, but a Mexican War commanding general, and Buchanan was apparently a lucky guess. It was named in 1837 as part of Wisconsin Territory, 20 years before he became president, when he was just a senator.

So while Iowa only skipped Tyler among presidents prior to statehood, it didn't have many presidents available when creating counties.

Nebraska has 11 counties name for presidents. Some say Madison is named for a city in Wisconsin, but it was named for the president.

Texas has 11 if you count Burnet, Houston, Lamar, Jones, and Jeff Davis. And it had a Buchanan.
75  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Name Game on: October 27, 2016, 03:56:41 pm
The 1st looks like Benjamin Harrison.  There are several Harrison counties, but they were named after William H. or other Harrisons.
Two were named for other Benjamin Harrison's. The one in West Virginia (then Virginia) is named for William Henry's father, a former governor and signer of the Declaration of Independence.

The one in Kentucky is named after an early settler, who does not appear to have a direct link to the presidents, but the father of William Henry Harrison was Benjamin Harrison V, and the family was quite prominent in Virginia.

But Benjamin Harrison was not the first to be skipped.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 302


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines