Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
October 25, 2014, 08:30:41 am
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Atlas Hardware Upgrade complete October 13, 2013.

  Show Posts
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 228
51  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 25, 2014, 07:45:11 pm
1880

Top 20 USA cities have 100K+.  Top 50 more than 35,000.  Top 100 more than 19,700.  For each state or territory, top 3 are shown, along with additional cities in USA Top 50.  Top 20 in bold, New to list in italics.  Cities not in Top 10 in red.

First appearance of Brattleboro(VT), Pawtucket(RI), Dover(DE), Charlotte(NC), Bay City(MI), Jackson(MS), Des Moines(IA), Eureka Springs(AR), Deadwood(DK), Fargo(DK), Topeka(KS), Butte(MT), Fort Benton(MT), Laramie(MT), Rawlins(MT), Leadville(CO), Silver Cliff(CO), Silver City(NM), Prescott(AZ), Phoenix(AZ), East Portland(OR), Astoria(OR)

MA (7), NY(7), NJ(4), PA(5), and OH(5) have more than 3 cities in Top 50.

VT, NC, FL, MS, AR, KS, NV and OR have no cities in Top 100.  Kansas is added to the list, as Leavenworth falters, and threshold increases.

Portland 34K
Lewiston 19K
Bangor 10K

Manchester 33K
Concord14K
Nashua 13K

Burlington 12K
Rutland 8K
Brattleboro 4K

Boston 363K
Lowell 59K
Worcester 58K
Cambridge 53K
Fall River 49K
Lawrence 39K
Lynn 38K

Boston annexes Charlestown, Brighton, and West Roxbury.

Providence 105K
Pawtucket 20K
Woonsocket 17K

New Haven 63K
Hartford 42K
Bridgewater 28K

New York 1206K
Brooklyn 567K
Buffalo 155K
Albany 91K
Rochester 89K
Troy 57K
Syracuse 52K

New York City becomes first million plus American city.

Newark 137K
Jersey City 121K
Paterson 51K
Camden 42K

Philadelphia 847K
Pittsburgh 156K (235K with Allegheny)
Allegheny 79K
Scranton 46K
Reading 43K

Wilmington 42K
New Castle 4K
Dover 3K

Baltimore 332K
Cumberland 11K
Frederick 9K

Washington 147K
Georgetown 13K

Richmond 64K
Norfolk 22K
Petersburg 22K

Wilmington 17K
Raleigh 9K
Charlotte 7K

Charleston 50K
Columbia 10K
Greenville 6K

Atlanta 37K
Savannah 30K
Augusta 22K

Key West 10K
Jacksonville 8K
Pensacola 7K

Detroit 116K
Grand Rapids 32K
Bay City 21K

Milwaukee 116K
Racine 16K
Oshkosh 15K

Cincinnati 255K
Cleveland 160K
Columbus 52K
Toledo 50K
Dayton 39K

Indianapolis 75K
Evansville 29K
Fort Wayne 27K

Chicago 503K
Peoria 29K
Quincy 27K

Chicago is 3rd largest city in country.

Wheeling 31K
Parkersburg 7K
Martinsburg 6K

Louisville 124K
Covington 30K
Newport 20K

Nashville 43K
Memphis 34k
Chattanooga 13K

Mobile 29K
Montgomery 17K
Selma 8K

Vicksburg 12K
Natchez 7K
Jackson 5K

Minneapolis 47K
St.Paul 41K
Winona 10K

Des Moines 22K
Dubuque 22K
Davenport 22K

St.Louis 351K
Kansas City 56K
St.Joseph 32K

Little Rock 13K
Eureka Springs 4K
Helena 4K

New Orleans 216K
Shreveport 8K
Baton Rouge 7K

Deadwood 4K
Fargo 3K
Yankton 3K

Omaha 31K
Lincoln 13K
Nebraska City 4K

Leavenworth 17K
Topeka 15K
Atchison 15K

It is interesting that at the time, it made sense to have railroad companies with names like Atchison, Burlington, and Quincy as part of their names.

Galveston 22K
San Antonio 20K
Houston 17K

Helena 4K
Butte 3K
Fort Benton 3K

Cheyenne 3K
Laramie 2K
Rawlins 1K

Denver 36K
Leadville 14K
Silver Cliff 5K

Santa Fe 7K
Albuquerque 3K
Silver City 2K

Boise City 2K

Virginia City 11K
Gold Hill 4K
Carson City 4K

Salt Lake City 21K
Ogden 6K
Provo 3K

Salt Lake City becomes second Top 100 city in a territory, sharing that honor along with the Jazz with New Orleans.

Tucson 7K
Prescott 2K
Phoenix 2K

Walla Walla 4K
Seattle 4K
Olympia 1K

Portland 18K
East Portland 3K
Astoria 3K

San Francisco 234K
Oakland 35K
Sacramento 21K
52  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 24, 2014, 09:25:35 pm
1870

Top 3 in each state or territory, plus all cities in Top 50 in USA (greater than 26,766).
Top 20 USA in bold, cities not in Top 100 in Red (less than 14,030).  Cities making first appearance in italics.

VT, NC, FL, MS, TX, AR, NV, and OR had no Top 100 cities.

Portland 31K
Bangor 18K
Lewiston 14K

Manchester 24K
Concord 12K
Nashua 11K

I had always thought Concord to be an out of the way place, but it was a significant town by New Hampshire standards, having moved past the early leader Portsmouth, but falling behind the mill towns.

Burlington 14K
Rutland 10K
St Johnsbury 5K

Boston 251K (279K if Charlestown included)
Worcester 41K
Lowell 41K
Cambridge 40K
Lawrence 29K
Charlestown 28K
Lynn 28K
Fall River 27K

Boston annexed Roxbury and Dorchester during decade.

Providence 69K
North Providence 20K
Newport 13K

New Haven 51K
Hartford 37K
Bridgewater 19K

New York 942K
Brooklyn 396K
Buffalo 118K
Albany 69K
Rochester 62K
Troy 46K
Syracuse 43K
Utica 29K

Newark 105K
Jersey City 83K
Paterson 34K

Philadelphia 674K
Pittsburgh 86K (139K with Allegheny)
Allegheny 53K
Scranton 35K
Reading 34K

Wilmington 31K
Smyrna 2K
New Castle 2k

This is the first census for which urban areas were clearly delineated for Delaware.

Baltimore 267K
Frederick 9K
Cumberland 8K

Washington 109K
Georgetown 11K

Richmond 51K
Norfolk 19K
Petersburg 19K

Wilmington 13K
Raleigh 8k
New Bern(e) 6k

Charleston 49K
Columbia 9K
Greenville 3K

Savannah 28K
Atlanta 22K
Augusta 15K

Jacksonville 7K
Key West 5K
Pensacola 3K

Detroit 80K
Grand Rapids 17K
Jackson 11K

Milwaukee 71K
Fond du Lac 13K
Oshkosh 13K

Cincinnati 216K
Cleveland 93K
Toledo 32K
Columbus 31K
Dayton 30K

Indianapolis 48K
Evansville 22K
Fort Wayne 18K

Chicago 299K
Quincy 24K
Peoria 23K

Chicago not quite the largest city in the West.

Wheeling 19K
Parkersburg 6K
Martinsburg 5K

Wheeling would have been second largest city in Virginia.

Louisville 101K
Covington 25K
Newport 15K

Memphis 40K
Nashville 26K
Knoxville 9K

Mobile 32K
Montgomery 11K
Selma 6K

Vicksburg 12K
Natchez 9K
Columbus 5K

St Paul 20K
Minneapolis 13K (18K with St.Anthony)
Winona 7K

Davenport 20K
Dubuque 18K
Burlington 15K

St.Louis 311K
Kansas City 32K
St.Joseph 20K

Little Rock 12K
Van Buren 3K
Helena 2K

New Orleans 191K
Baton Rouge 6K
Shreveport 5k

Yankton 4K

Omaha 16K
Nebraska City 6K
Lincoln 2K

Leavenworth 18K
Lawrence 8K
Atchison 7K

Galveston 14K
San Antonio 12K
Houston 9K

Helena 3K

Cheyenne 1K

Denver 5K
Central City 2K
Black Hawk 1K

Santa Fe 5K
Mesilla 2K
Albuquerque 1K

Boise City 1K

Virginia City 7K
Gold Hill 4K
Carson City 3K

Salt Lake City 13K
Ogden 3K
Provo 2K

Tucson 3K
Arizona City 1K

Walla Walla 1K
Olympia1K
Seattle 1K

Portland 8K
Oregon City 1K
Eugene 1K

San Francisco 149K
Sacramento 16K
Oakland 10K
53  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 24, 2014, 11:04:21 am
1860

For 1860, I've listed the three largest cities, plus any others in the USA Top 50 (greater than 18,266).  Top 20 USA in Bold.

Portland 26K
Bangor 16K
Bath 8K

Manchester 20K
Concord 11K
Nashua 10K

Burlington 8K
Rutland 8K
Bennington 4K

Boston 178K (239K if Roxbury, Charlestown, and Dorchester included)
Lowell 37K
Cambridge 26K
Roxbury 25K
Charlestown 25K
Worcester 25K
New Bedford 22K
Salem 22K
Lynn 19K

Providence 51K
North Providence 12K
Newport 11K

New Haven 39K
Hartford 27K
Norwich 14K

New York 814K
Brooklyn 266K (annexed Williamsburgh, but not all of Kings County)
Buffalo 81K
Albany 62K
Rochester 48K
Troy 39K
Syracuse 28K
Utica 23K

Newark 72K
Jersey City 29K
Paterson 20K

Philadelphia 565K (Philadelphia city merged with Philadelphia county)
Pittsburgh 49K (78K with Allegheny)
Allegheny 29K
Reading 23K

Wilmington 21K
Murderkill 7K
Christiana 5K

Baltimore 212K
Frederick 8K
Annapolis 5K

Washington 61K
Georgetown 9K

Richmond 38K
Petersburg 18K
Norfolk 15K

Wilmington 10K
New Bern 5K
Fayetteville 5K

Charleston 41K
Columbia ?? (not discerned, but probably less than 10K)
Georgetown 2K
Camden 2K

Savannah 22K
Augusta 12K
Columbus 10K

Pensacola 3K
Key West 3K
Jacksonville 2K

Mobile 29K
Montgomery 9K
Tuscaloosa 4K

Natchez 7K
Vicksburg 5K
Columbus 3K

New Orleans 169K
Donaldsonville 11K
St. Landry 10K

San Antonio 8K
Galveston 7K
Houston 5K

Little Rock 4K
Camden 2K
Fort Smith 2K

Memphis 23K
Nashville 17K
Murfreesboro 3K

Louisville 68K
Covington 16K
Newport 10K

St.Louis 160K
St.Joseph 9K
Hannibal 7K

Chicago 112K
Peoria 14K
Quincy 14K

Indianapolis 19K
New Albany 13K
Evansville 11K

Cincinnati 161K
Cleveland 43K
Dayton 20K
Columbus 19K

Detroit 46K
Grand Rapids 8K
Adrian 6K

Milwaukee 45K
Racine 8K
Madison 6K

St.Paul 10K
St.Anthony 3K (opposite Minneapolis on east bank of Mississippi)
Minneapolis 2K

Dubuque 13K
Davenport 11K
Keokuk 8K

Leavenworth 7K
Atchiston 3K
Wyandott 2K (north of Kansas/Kaw River, on Missouri, now part of KCK)

San Francisco 57K
Sacramento 14K
Marysville 5K

Portland 3K
Eugene 2K

Territories

South Park 11K (near Fairplay)
Denver 5K
California Gulch 3K (near Leadville)

Pembina 4K

Nebraska City 2K
Omaha 2K

Virginia City 2K

Santa Fe 5K
Mesilla 2K

Salt Lake City 8K
Provo 2K
Ogden 2K

(none in Washington Territory)
54  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 23, 2014, 12:55:59 am
1850

In areas of the country without formal county subdivisions, populations of cities were often estimated from census returns.

Portland 15K
Bangor 9K
Augusta 8K

Manchester 14K
Portsmouth 10K
Concord 9K

Burlington 6K
Bennington 4K
Rutland 4K

Boston 137K (with Roxbury, Charlestown, and Dorchester 183K)
Lowell 34K
Salem 20K
Roxbury 18K
Charlestown 17K
Worcester 17K
New Bedford 16K
Cambridge 15K
Lynn 14K
Springfield 12K
Fall River 12K
Taunton 10K.

Providence 42K
Smithfield 12K
Newport 10K

New Haven 20K
Hartford 14K
Norwich 10K

New York 516K
Brooklyn 97K (with Williamsburgh 128K; with all of Kings County 138K)
Albany 51K
Buffalo 42K
Rochester 36K
Williamsburgh 30K
Troy 29K
Syracuse 22K
Utica 18K
Poughkeepsie 14K
Oswego 12K
Lockport 12K
Newburg(h) 11K.

Newark 39K
Paterson 11K
New Brunswick 10K

Philadelphia 121K (with Spring Garden, Northern Liberties, Kensington, Southwark, and Moyamensing 344K; entire Philadelphia County 409K)
Spring Garden 59K
Northern Liberties 47K
Kensington 47K
Pittsburgh 47K (with Allegheny 68K)
Southwark 39K
Moyamensing 27K
Allegheny 21K
Reading 16K
Lancaster 12K

Wilmington 14K
Milford and Mispillion hundreds 6K
Murder Hill hundred 6K.

Baltimore 169K
Cumberland 6K
Frederick(town) 6K.

Washington 40K
Georgetown 8K
(Alexandria returned to Virginia).

Richmond 28K
Norfolk 14K
Petersburg 14K
Wheeling 11K

Willmington 7K
New Bern (Newbern) 5K
Fayetteville 5K.

Charleston 43K
Columbia 6K

Savannah 15K
Augusta (12K in 1852)
Columbus 6K

Pensacola 2K
St.Augustine 2K
Jacksonville 1K

Mobile 21K
Montgomery 9K
Huntsville 3K

Natchez 4K
Vicksburg 4K
Columbus 2K

New Orleans 116K (with Lafayette 131K)
Lafayette 14K (this was a city in Jefferson Parish, which was annexed to New Orleans (and Orleans Parish)
Baton Rouge 4K.

Galveston 4K
San Antonio 3K
Houston 2K

Little Rock 2K

Nashville 10K
Memphis 9K
Knoxville 3K

Louisville 43K
Covington 9K
Lexington 8K (est)

St.Louis 78K

Chicago 30K
Quincy 7K
Galena 6K

New Albany 8K
Indianapolis 8K
Madison 8K

Cincinnati 115K
Columbus 18K
Cleveland 18K
Dayton 17K

Detroit 21K
Monroe 3K
Grand Rapids 3K
Kalamazoo 3K

Milwaukee 20K
Racine 5K
Kenosha 3K

Burlington 4K
Fairfield 1K
Iowa City 1K

Sacramento 7K
Placerville 6K
Nevada City 3K

Territories

St.Paul 1K

Santa Fe 5K

Portland 1K
Madison 2K
55  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: LA: 1972 Gubernatorial General Election Result on: September 22, 2014, 11:58:20 pm
Wait ... Louisiana Governor used to be an on-year election?

No, this election actually took place across three rounds which extended into the following year.  First, the primaries took place on general election day 1971 (i.e. November 6th).  Then there was a runoff for the Dem primary on December 18th.  Then finally the general election took place on February 1st 1972.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louisiana_gubernatorial_election,_1971%E2%80%9372

So when did they start doing the jungle primary?
After the 1971-2 election.  Edwards received about 1/4 of the vote in the Democratic 1st Primary, in which over a million votes were cast.  Meanwhile Treen was nominated in the Republican 1st Primary in which under 10,000 votes were cast.

Edwards was narrowly nominated in the 2nd Primary, and then had to defeat Treen in the general election.  Fewer votes were cast in the general election than the 2nd Primary, but it appears that all of Johnston's support went to Treen.

Previously, the general election had been a superfluity; so it was logical for it to be eliminated.  It was also hoped that it would eliminate a Republican getting traction from a one-on-one election.  The constitution does not specify the manner of election.

Edwards took office in May 1972, so that a January election was not that odd.  The 1974 constitution moved the beginning of the term to March, and with an amendment adopted in 1986, effective in January 1992, moved the beginning of terms to January.  The legislature continues to meet in March of even-numbered years.

The primary in 1971 was, like most (all?) non-federal elections in Louisiana, was on a Saturday.  The current election date for the Open Primary and the runoff are in mid-October and mid-November of an odd-numbered year (legislators and executive offices, both serve 4-year terms).
56  Other Elections - Analysis and Discussion / Gubernatorial/Statewide Elections / Re: Complete List of Gubernatorial Candidates on: September 22, 2014, 09:57:05 pm
Texas:

Greg Abbott
Wendy Davis
Brandon Parmer
Katie Glass

Let me know if I made any errors or forgot anyone.
It is Kathie Glass, with an 'h'.
57  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 22, 2014, 06:58:10 pm
I'm surprised that Kaskaskia, IL didn't show up on the list. It's the oldest city in the state and the site of the territorial government and the first state capital. It was a significant river town in the 1700's and at the time of statehood they claimed a population of about 7K.
I am dubious of the claim of 7K.

In 1810, the population for Illinois Territory was 12,282 divided between the Randolph and St.Clair counties (the two counties that covered most of Illinois when it was part of Indiana Territory).  The 12,282 may have included a very few in present-day Wisconsin; but even by 1820 the population of Wisconsin, which had been transferred to Michigan Territory, was only 1,444.

Randolph County had 7,275 in 1810; while St.Clair had 5,007.   But without tracking down a map, I would assume that Randolph extended east to the Wabash, and would have included the Ohio River, picking up lots of pioneers who had come down the Ohio or across from Kentucky.

In 1820, the new state of Illinois had 55,211 persons and had been divided into 19 counties.  Randolph had 3,492 (after having provided for 10 counties, plus parts of 5 others).   Madison was the most populous in 1820, with 13,550, but that was because it had not yet been divided (Jo Daviess was partially created from Madison), though Alton may have been founded by then.

Fayette County (home of Vandalia, where the state capital was located) had not been created, but its progenitors counties only had about 6,000 persons, which argues against a wholesale movement from Kaskaskia when the capital was relocated.

There may have been settlers who took refuge in Kaskaskia during the War of 1812.  And there may have been descendants of French traders and Indians who were not counted, whose residency might have been intermittent.   But I can't find anything to support the 7,000 figure other than it is repeated a lot.
58  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 22, 2014, 01:27:47 pm
In 1820, there were 7 states that didn't have any cities - big or small. How is it possible that, say, Dover DE wasn't a city?
Dover was not incorporated until 1829, even though it the capital since 1777.

A legislature would only need to meet a week or two, once a year.  In November 1787, Delawareans elected 30 delegates (10 from each county) to the ratification convention for the US Constitution.  They met on December 4, and ratified the Constitution on December 7 (Tuesday to Friday).

In the first congressional election in 1789, about 2000 votes were cast for Delaware's sole representative.  Nobody could afford to take much time off to be a legislator.  Throughout most of the 19th century, Delaware's Senate had 9 members, and its House 21 members.  Think how tiny capitals such as Frankfort, Montpelier, or Pierre are even today.

In 1830, Cincinnati had 25K (more than doubling from 1820), but the next largest cities in Ohio, all had about 3K (Dayton, Chillicothe, Zanesville, and Steubenville).   Chillicothe and Zanesville both served as early capitals.  When Columbus was named the capital in 1812, it didn't exist.  The move occurred in 1816, but Columbus did not become a city until 1834.

While Ohio had cities in 1830, Indiana and Illinois did not.  But Ohio had 3 times the population of Indiana, and about 6 times that of Illinois.
59  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 22, 2014, 12:30:51 pm
By 1830, you are starting to see development of inland cities, but they were dependent on transportation, usually by water.  The Erie Canal was completed in 1825, bringing several cities to the list.

Portland 13K

Portsmouth 8K
Dover 5K

Boston 61K (18K more in Charlestown, Roxbury, and Dorchester)
Salem 14K
Charlestown 9K
New Bedford 8K
Gloucester 8K
Nantucket 8K
Springfield 7K
Lowell 6K
Newburyport 6K
Lynn 6K
Cambridge 6K
Taunton 6K
Roxbury 5K
Marblehead 5K
Middleborough 5K

Providence 17K
Newport 8K
Warwick 6K

New Haven 10K
Hartford 7K

New York 202K
Albany 24K
Brooklyn 12K
Troy 12K
Rochester 9K
Buffalo 9K
Utica 8K
Hudson 8K

Newark 11K

Philadelphia 80K (164K, including Northern Liberties 29K, Southwark 21K, Kensington 13, Spring Garden 12K, Moyamensing 7K).
Pittsburgh 13K (15K including Allegheny)
Lancaster 8K
Reading 6K

Baltimore 81K

Washington 19K
Georgetown 8K
Alexandria 8K

Richmond 16K
Norfolk 10K
Petersburg 8K

Charleston 30K

Savannah 7K
Augusta 7K

Cincinnati 25K

Louisville 10K
Lexington 6K

Nashville 6K

Largest cities less than 5K:

St.Louis, MO 5K-
New Bern, NC 4K
Mobile, AL 3K
Natchez, MS 3K

City-less states: VT, DE, IN, IL
60  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 22, 2014, 12:12:17 am
By 1820:

Portland 9K

Portsmouth 7K

Boston 43K
Salem 13K
Nantucket 7K
Newburyport 7K
Charlestown 7K
Gloucester 6K
Marblehead 6K

Providence 12K
Newport 7K

New Haven 7K

New York 123K
Albany 13K
Brooklyn 7K
Hudson 5K
Troy 5K

Philadelphia 64K
Northern Liberties 20K
Southwark 15K
Kensington 7K
(these 4 plus Spring Gardens 112K)
Pittsburgh 7K
Lancaster 7K

Baltimore 63K

Washington 13K
Alexandria 8K
Georgetown 7K

Richmond 12K
Norfolk 8K
Petersburg 7K

Charleston 25K

Cincinnati 10K

Lexington 5K

New Orleans 27K

Other largest cities less than 5K:

Trenton, NJ 4K
New Bern, NC 4K

City-less states: VT, DE, TN, IN, IL, MS, AL
61  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 21, 2014, 11:54:49 pm
By 1810:

Portland 7K

Portsmouth 7K

Boston 34K
Salem 13K
Newburyport 8K
Nantucket 7K
Gloucester 6K
Marblehead 6K
New Bedford 6K

Providence 10K
Newport 8K

New Haven 6K

New York 96K
Albany 11K
Schenectady 6K

Philadelphia 54K
Northern Liberties 20K
Southwark 14K
(Collectively 87K)
Lancaster 5K

Baltimore 47K

Washington 8K
Alexandria 7K

Richmond 10K
Petersburg 6K

Charleston 25K

Savannah 5K

New Orleans 17K (Louisiana did not become a state until two years later in 1812)

Largest cities less than 5K:

Lexington, KY 4K
Trenton, NJ 3K
Cincinnati, OH 3K

Citieless states: VT, DE, NC, TN
62  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 21, 2014, 11:38:52 pm
By 1800, there were the beginnings of cities in other states, and explosive growth in the largest cities:

Portsmouth 5K

Boston 25K
Salem 9K
Newburyport 6K
Nantucket 6K
Gloucester 5K
Marblehead 6k

Providence 8K
Newport 7K

New London 5K

New York 61K
Albany 5K
Schenectady 5K

Philadelphia 41K
Northern Liberties 11K
Southwark 10K
(if included with Philadephia 62K)

Baltimore 26K

Norfolk 7K
Richmond 6K

Charleston 19K

Savannah 5K

Largest cities of "states", with city population under 5K:

Portland, ME 4K
Alexandria, DC 5K-

States with no cities: VT, NJ, DE, NC, KY, TN

Other than Richmond and Schenectady all were ports.   In Massachusetts, while the ports were developing, the most populous county was Hampshire, which at that time included Hampden and Franklin counties (ie the Connecticut Valley)
63  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Were there any big cities in the South pre-1860? on: September 21, 2014, 11:20:23 pm
I realize that up to the 1930's or so, population in the south was spread, people lived rural, and concentrations of population were rare. Everything was based on plantations, agriculture, and farmland. But I for the life of me can't find any "big" cities besides New Orleans. Here's a list of southern cities, particularly cities from former-Confederate states, that now have 100,000+ (with the exception of just very big cities in TX), and their population in 1860:
In 1790 there were 12 cities of over 5,000 persons.  Organized by state:

Boston 18K
Salem 8K
Marblehead 6K
Gloucester 5K

Newport 7K
Providence 6K

New York 33K

Philadelphia 29K
Northern Liberties 10K
Southwark 6K
The latter two were in Philadelphia County.  If we add them to Philadelphia, that would make 45K, or the largest city by a large amount.

Baltimore 14K

Charleston 16K

There were no cities of greater than 5K in ME, NH, VT, CT, NJ, DE, VA, NC, or GA.

The largest cities in these states were:

Portsmouth, NH 5K-
New Haven, CT 4K
Richmond, VA 4K

ME, VT, NJ, DE, NC and GA had no cities.

All of the above other than Richmond were ports.
64  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: What is a WASP? on: September 05, 2014, 11:33:45 pm
This forum uses it in a bizarre way I'd never seen before...  I always thought of it as exactly what it stands for:
White (obvious enough)
Anglo Saxon (English/German/Northern European with fair features)
Protestant (mainline denomination, not evangelical).
I've heard that definition a lot, but
1. In which way are Germans and Northern Europeans Anglo Saxons?
2. Isn't Anglo Saxon almost redundant in this case, because how many White Protestants are there historically that are not British, German, Dutch or Northern European? (Huguenots? Hussites? Valdesi? Sobozinians?)

Excuse my ignorance and preliminary knowledge on the subject, but I was under the impression that the Anglos were from England and the Saxons were from Germany, giving rise to the definition I used.  As for your second point, I agree.  I was just saying I'd usually heard it used that way.  Honestly, without trying to veer off subject or getting to tender subjects, I kind of always associated it with ethnicities of people that the Nazis would have gone all googly-eyes over.
The Angles were from what is now Schleswig-Holstein, who settled in eastern Britain, where they gave their name to East Anglia, the part of Britain that sticks out northeast of London.  But the Angles settled as far north as Edinburgh.  The Saxons were in southern England around London, where they gave their name to Essex, Sussex, Wessex, and Middlesex.  Over time they became intertwined and their language of English developed. 

Anglo-Saxon generally refers to someone from Britain or particularly England, and also the the English-speaking world, particularly the special relationship between the USA and GB (terms such as British or English, of course would not be acceptable in the USA, to the way that they would in Canada or Australia).

WASP may have originally been Wealthy Anglo-Saxon Protestant, the elite, wealthy, largely of English or British descent, Protestants who dominated American business and society, particularly through WWII.  It is a handy term if you are Catholic, or Jewish, or ethnic, or black, and want to claim you are using a descriptive term, but want to use it in a disparaging or derogatory manner.
65  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Is the North ever going to have comeback demographically ? on: September 05, 2014, 05:16:33 pm
75+ years out, climate change could make most of the Sunbelt unlivable and give the Frost Belt a pleasant, temperate climate.
But would they have the 4 seasons like on Baffin Island?
66  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 05, 2014, 04:49:12 pm
Would Adirondack really have a GOP leg? I could see the state senate, but I doubt they'd have the trifecta.
Local politics would have developed differently.  If the state were Republican, the party would have an easier time recruiting town councilmen and county officials for the legislature.  A potential Democrat candidate would have to (1) pay the filing fee; (2) try to raise campaign funds, or paint the signs himself; (3) get elected; and (4) if elected, be assigned to the pencil-sharpening committee.  As a result, the Democratic candidate might be someone who has the money for the filing fee; and was planning to get a tattoo anyhow, and "Vote for Smith" with a couple of eagles looks cool, and knows a graffiti artist who will paint his 1983 Votemobile.   They may be willing to try again and again in two years.
67  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 05, 2014, 04:32:23 pm
Here is the apportionment for a weighted 150-member Rio Grande legislature.



Counties with an entitlement of more than one were guaranteed their own representative.  The collective entitlement of these 17 counties was 131.279, which was rounded to 131.  Their base entitlement (the sum of the integer part of their entitlement) was 124.  The difference between 131 and 124, which is 7, was apportioned on the basis of a list method using the the harmonic mean.  The harmonic mean is favorable to smaller counties, and this case resulted in Bastrop (1.436) gaining its 2nd member, while Travis (19.826) was left with 19.  This is desirable, since a single member from Bastrop would have a weight 43.6% above parity, while two members are each only 21.8% below.  Meanwhile the 19 Travis representatives will only average 4.3% above parity.  And of course, each county's total weight will be precisely proportional to its population.

The remaining 19 representatives (150-121) were distributed among the 52 smaller counties.   I tried to apportion a single district to the largest of these counties (those closest to 1).  These counties may have in the past been above 1.0 and had their own district, but lost population share; or in the future may gain population share, and be required to have their own districts.  This provides stability.  There were 6 large-small counties (Burnet, Kerr, Val Verde, Medina, Atascosa, and Wilson).

The remaining 13 representatives were distributed among the 46 smallest counties, generally trying to apportion representation to larger regions (eg an area entitled to around 3 representatives would have 3 districts).

An alternative would be to maintain districts over time, letting their weight grow or shrink in response to a change in population share, and only making adjustments when necessary.  This would provide stability over longer periods.  In Texas, a district in a zero-growth area would decline by half in population share over 38 years.  So many districts could be retained for multiple redistricting cycles, since even slow growth would delay the need for adjustment.

In rural areas, it may be possible to simply combined districts every few decades, while in high growth suburban areas a district might be split, or perhaps 2 districts rearranged into three groups.

There is no structural reason to have 150 reprsentatives, even though the total weight is 150.  In such a system, Travis and El Paso could have been apportioned an additional representative, based on their share of the total population, rather than their share relative to other counties.  And the same is true for the districts in the smaller counties.  Districts could simply be permitted to drift across a range of values (2/3 to 4/3 of parity), with redistricting only occurring when a district is out of range.  Redistricting may be simpler at that time, when it may be possible to combine two districts or split a district, rather than trying to fashion 3 districts from parts of four, or 4 districts from parts of 3.
68  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 05, 2014, 08:53:18 am
The legislature redistricted the House after the 1980 census, but like in 1971, the Texas Supreme Court said it did not comply with the Texas Constitution due to excessive cutting of counties.  There were 10 small counties with population less than one quota that were split.  Some, such as San Augustine, were quite small.  In addition, most counties with even small surpluses had quasi-floterial districts.  For example, El Paso was entitled to 5.059 representatives, and had 5 districts, plus a small portion in a district extending east to Odessa.  There were 8 such larger counties that could have had whole districts contained within their boundaries and be withing constitutional limits of deviation.

In addition, the court noted that 3 counties had their surplus divided among two districts.  Of particular concern was Nueces County, which was entitled to 2.827 districts, but with only one wholly in the county.  The voters in Nueces County probably were not too concerned since they would have totally dominated all three districts, but it was a clear violation of the Texas Constitution, that large counties be apportioned the whole number of representatives they were entitled to.

Rio Grande 1981 House Districts



County splits are symbolic, since I only had text of legislation available.  Note that Nueces county had one district entirely in the county, as well as one extending into Aransas, and another extending into Kleberg.

Clements v Valles was the Texas Supreme Court decision that overturned the legislature plan.  Bill Clements was the first Republican governor since reconstruction, and had the honor of having the lawsuit styled after him, even though the legislature was firmly in Democratic hands.  

The plaintiffs in the case had demonstrated that the deviation could be within the 10% limit, and reduce the number of counties split.  The court also rejected the State's argument that retaining surpluses within larger counties would discriminate against minorities, since it would tend to make districts within the county larger.  This of course only true of some counties.  A county with entitled to 4.8 representative would have a nominal surplus of 0.800.  But if apportioned 5 representatives, would average 96% of the ideal population.

After the Supreme Court decision, the Legislative Redistricting Board took over.  Comprised of the Attorney General, Comptroller,  Land Commissioner, House Speaker, and Lieutenant Governor, in 1981, it was firmly in Democratic hands.  Given direction by the Supreme Court, they fashioned a new map.  One advantage they may have had, is that they had less self-interest in preserving existing districts.  Splitting small counties is one way to minimize changes to districts.  Otherwise the requirement to compose districts of whole counties, usually requires wholesale rearrangement each decade.

The districts drawn by the LRB were challenged on a number of grounds, including being racially discriminatory, politically discriminatory, too much population deviation, and dividing communities, including Baytown and Montgomery County.

The Attorney General made his Section 5 submission to the USDOJ, and then the Secretary of State, appointed by the governor, made a separate submission, in which he suggested several problems with the LRB's plan.  The USDOJ later objected to the districts in most of the larger metropolitan areas, and to a Val Verde district.  This stalled the court proceedings in Terrazas v Clements, since the USDOJ objections meant that the LRB districts could not be used.  The federal court was left with considering whether to use the 1970s districts - by 1980, the largest had 4.5 times the population of the smallest, or not holding elections.   The USDOJ eventually, withdrew its objections, except with respect to Bexar, Dallas and El Paso counties.  The federal court then fashioned an interim plan meshing the LRB plan, with plans submitted by MALDEF for Bexar and El Paso counties.

This was an interim plan, to be used for the 1982 elections.  The court warned that if the State did not adopt a plan that was precleared by the USDOJ, that any plan they drew would likely require greater population equality than one drawn by the legislature.   This presumably would have meant wholesale splitting of counties, since the largest deviations are typically found where combinations of counties are forced as the only way to get within 5% (or 10% total deviation).  This might have run afoul of a modern SCOTUS which has directed federal courts to respect state laws and legislative priorities in redistricting cases to the extent possible.

The 1983 legislature adopted the LRB plan with the MALDEF changes for Bexar and El Paso.  The committee report noted that with the election of Mark White as governor, the Secretary of State had changed, and that the USDOJ had informally approved the Bexar and El Paso maps.

1982 Rio Grande House Districts



Several changes are notable.   The splits of El Paso (5.059 entitlement), Webb (1.040), and Bexar (10.424) were eliminated.  While the surpluses in El Paso and Webb were minuscule, that in Bexar was substantial.  Further, Bexar previously had 11 districts, so that the LRB change meant a loss of a district.  So even though not splitting Bexar resulted in an average 4.2% deviation, it was within the presumptive 5% (or 10%) OMOV limits.

Dallas County had a similar surplus (16.407).  In Dallas, 17 districts were apportioned.  This was primarily done so Dallas would only lose one representative from 18 to 17.  Increasing to the next whole number is legal if the population "substantially" warrants it.  In this case, the average Dallas district had a -3.5% deviation.

Even though Dallas had a nominally smaller surplus than Bexar, (0.407 vs 0.424), rounding Dallas up can be justified on apportionment grounds.  Dallas would have the greater right to the additional seat under a list method, regardless whether the arithmetic mean: (n+(n+1))/2, geometric mean: sqrt(n*(n+1)), or harmonic mean: 2*n*(n+1)/(n+(n+1)), is used.  The harmonic mean might be preferred for this application since the goal is to minimize population deviation.

Overall, the LRB eliminated county splits of 8 large counties where the surplus could be absorbed within the county, and all 10 small county splits.

There were three large counties that had their surplus distributed between two districts, the same as in the legislative plan.  But in all three instances under the LRB, the county had the correct number of districts wholly within the county.

Legislative Plan: Brazoria, Nueces, and Denton.
LRB Plan: Brazoria, Jefferson, and Collin.

Brazoria is adjacent to three large counties, and one moderate sized county.   With a fairly large surplus (1.788) it is difficult to find partners,   Most of its matched up with Fort Bend (1.379), but together there population of (3.167) was slightly too much for 3 districts, so the excess was combined with Matagorda.  Conceivably, Fort Bend could have been the double split county, but one or the other would be necessary.

Jefferson in the southeast corner had a large surplus (2.645) and only three neighbors.  In the legislature's plan, the use of split surpluses was avoided by dividing nearby counties of Liberty and San Augustine.

Nueces was double split under the legislature's plan and had only one district wholly in the county despite a population of 2.827.  Clearly the double split was not needed, since the LRB plan eliminated.

Denton (1.509) and Collin (1.529) could have been paired for a total population of 3.038.  In fact, the populations were similar enough that a conventional floterial district could have been used.  But neighboring Grayson had a population of 0.947, just outside the 5% limit (the overall deviation was 9.95% so it may not have been possible to use an asymmetric range that included Grayson.   Instead under the legislative plan, a small portion of Denton was added to Grayson; and under the LRB plan a small portion of Collin was added.  So one of the counties was double split so as to avoid a OMOV was split.  It also appears that this was done to avoid splitting a smaller county.

So it appear the rule is:

(1) Don't split larger county unless necessary to avoid a OMOV violation.  And always provide the whole number of representatives.
(2) Don't double split larger county unless necessary to avoid a OMOV violation, and (1) is insufficient.   And always provide whole number of representatives.
(3) Don't split smaller counties unless necessary to avoid a OMOV violation, and (1) and (2) are insuffiicient.
69  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 03, 2014, 02:55:50 pm
Following the 1970 census, the legislature redistricted the House.  It split 33 counties, including 18 that a population smaller than one district.  It also divided parts of Grayson between two districts, even though Grayson had enough population for its own district, plus a small surplus.

This plan was overturned by the Texas Supreme Court in Craddick v Smith.  Tom Craddick was one of a handful of Republican representatives, and was targeted by the plan which split Midland County.  He was also one of the Dirty Thirty who opposed House speaker Gus Mutscher.  Because of the decision, Craddick was able to retain his seat, and has continued to do so up until the present.  Preston Smith was governor at that time, but after being tainted by the Sharpstown Bank scandal that resulted in the conviction of Mutscher (later overturned), finished 4th in the Democratic primary in his re-election attempt.

The author of the 1971 redistrict plan was Delwin Jones, a Democratic representative at the time.  After being defeated by Pete Laney, and being out of the legislature for a time, he became a Republican and was elected to the House.  In 2001, then-Speaker Laney named Jones as chair of the redistricting committee.  Jones fashioned a plan that favored West Texas by underpopulating its districts, pressing the lower 95% limit, meanwhile costing Harris County its 25th district.  He gained the support of Harris County districts by letting them run amok and cut out a Republican representative.  Jones was later defeated in a Republican primary.  He is currently attempting to be elected to the Senate in a special election, though was recently hospitalized in critical condition.

After the Senate failed to pass the House map, the Legislative Redistricting Board drew the map.  The USDOJ and a federal district court forced redrawing of the Bexar county districts into their bunch of banana configuration.  The Republicans took control of the House based on this map in the 2002 elections, and Tom Craddick became speaker.   In 2003, the legislature redistricted the congressional districts, which they had failed to do so in 2001.

The Texas Supreme Court in Smith v Craddick harmonized the Texas Constitution with the OMOV provisions of Reynolds v Sims.   In particular, it said that counties entitled to one or more representatives must be apportioned that whole number of representatives.  It also said that to comply with OMOV requirements a portion of a large county could be attached to contiguous counties or parts of counties to form a district.  It did not really treat these districts as quasi-floterials, but they effectively are since they must be single member districts.

I think that floterials can be justified as complying with OMOV for apportionment purposes; but not for electoral purposes; in the same way that multi-member districts are justified for apportionment, but not electoral purposes.  It would be absurd to say that Harris County was not apportioned 24 representatives, but rather that that 24 representatives were individually apportioned to 24 districts within the county.  Since the Texas Constitution is foremost about apportionment of representatives among the counties, this can be used to determine that division of a county entitled to more than one representative is preferable to one that is entitled to less than one.

Rio Grande 1971 House Districts



Note: division of counties is symbolic.  The statute is defined in terms of enumeration districts, and I did not want to research that deeply.

Small counties that are split include Willacy, Wharton, Midland, and Tom Green.  Remarkably, the district that begins in Lee, continues through Burleson, Washington, Austin, and Waller to include a portion of Harris County.  The sliver of Harris County would be around 1/8 of a district.

Bexar, Bell, and Nueces are split, with the major portion electing 11, 1, or 3 representatives, and small portions (2 separate areas in the case of Bexar and Bell) being attached to adjacent counties.  These surpluses are fairly small, though in the case of Bell it is because a surplus of 0.668 is divided into two small areas.

In the case of Hidalgo and Cameron, areas in adjacent counties were included in a mult-member district.  This might be because of the split of Willacy, or the large surpluses in Cameron and Hidalgo counties (0.880 and 0.432, respectively).  Noteworthy is that Cameron lost population during the 1960s, while Hidalgo was flat.  Coupled with statewide growth of 16.9%, this meant considerable loss of representation for the two counties.

After the Craddick v Smith decision, the Legislative Redistricting Board was compelled to redistrict.  Ordinarily, the LRB is only activated when the legislature fails to redistrict.  The LRB which had been activated to perform senate redistricting argued that since the legislature had enacted legislation it had no authority with respect to house redistricting.  But in Mauzy v. Legislative Redistricting Board, the Texas Supreme Court decided that the legislature had failed to enact a redistricting measure that complied with the Texas Constitution, based on its earlier decision in Smith v Craddick

The map produced by the LRB, was later modified by a federal court in Graves v Barnes which ordered single member districts in Dallas and Bexar counties, based on minority vote dilution.  Harris County had already been formed into single-member districts, but Dallas and Bexar elected their 18 and 11 representatives at large.

Rio Grande 1972 House Districts



The map shows sketched in boundaries within counties, based on the online map in the Legislative Council's redistricting website.   Bexar County was divided into 11 single member districts, illustrated by  11*, plus an area which was attached to 6 adjacent counties.  Representatives in El Paso (4), Travis (4), Nueces (3), and Hidalgo (2) were still elected at large from the entire county, or a major portion of the entire county.

Statewide, the 1972 map split one smaller county, Red River.  This was required because the population of Bowie was less than one quota, but the addition of any of its three neighbors, Red River, Morris or Cass would put it more than 5% beyond the quota (the closest would have been Bowie+Morris at 1.073.

The overall deviation was 9.9%, somewhat asymmetric because the largest district was 1.058, and the smallest 0.959.

There a number of interesting things about the map.

Cameron County was not divided into two districts.  It was entitled to 1.880 representatives.  The eastern district had a population equivalent to the quota, while the large surplus was combined with a small portion of the surplus for Hidalgo.  Cameron could not be combined with Willacy since that would have required splitting Willacy.

Hidalgo was entitled to 2.432 representatives.  The larger part of the county elected two representatives, while the surplus was split between two areas, one combined with the Cameron surplus, and the other combined with 3 counties to the North.  This handling of the Hidalgo surplus, which was necessary to avoid division of other counties, would appear to provide a precedent for your handling of Williamson, Bastrop, and Bexar counties.  In all three cases, you apportioned the proper number of whole districts to the counties, and attached areas containing the surpluses to adjacent counties.

Nueces was entitled to 3.182 representatives.  Most of the county elected three representatives, while a small part of the county was combined with San Patricio and Aransas which formed the bulk of the district.

Bexar County was entitled to 11.125 districts.  That small of a surplus could have easily been distributed with only a 1% error.  Moreover, I doubt that the surplus was necessary to create districts within the 10% range, given the access to smaller counties to the northwest and west.  A plausible explanation why it might have been done, was it was unknown whether the overall deviation of 10% would be acceptable to the SCOTUS.

El Paso was entitled to 4.813 representatives, which would have permitted apportionment of 5 representative, with a -3.7% deviation.  It was instead split into an area with 4 representatives, and a remnant containing the large surplus.  The -3.7% deviation would have been within the overall limit of 9.9%.  The underage would have been partially balanced by the overage from Bexar counties.

So either the treatment of Bexar and El Paso violated the Texas Constitution, and no one was aware or challenged it; or they did not violate the Texas Consitution.

The Supreme Court in White v Regester upheld the 1972 districts.  Mark White was Secretary of State, later Attorney General and Governor.  The case originally had been styled Bullock v Regester, after Bob Bullock who was the second next previous Secretary of State, and later Lieutenant Govenor.  Leon Jaworski argued the case for Texas.  Later that year he would become the special prosecutor for Watergate.  The Attorney General was John Hill.  David Richard argued the case for the appellees.  At the time he was the husband of Ann Richards, later to be elected governor who oversaw the infamous 1990s Democratic gerrymander.  He was assisted by Jim Mattox, who was later Attorney General.

The Supreme Court decided that the 9.9% overall deviation was acceptable, given the State's interest in recognizing county boundaries.  A 3-judge panel in Graves v Barnes had ruled the deviation too great, but had stayed their decision for the 1972 election.  Texas was appealing that decision, which the SCOTUS overturned.  The SCOTUS made note that average deviation was only 1.82%, and only 23 districts had a deviation of more than 3%, and only three of more than 5%.

The Supreme Court did uphold the single member districts for Bexar and Dallas counties, which had been used for the 1972 elections.

The district court in Graves v Barnes extended its decision with regard to single member districts to apply to all counties, and in 1975, the legislature passed a new map creating single member districts.   It does not appear to have made substantive changes to the other districts, at least in the Rio Grande area.  Districts within counties were given suffixes (eg District 37 had been a 4-member district in Travis County.  It was divided into 4-single member districts: 37A, 37B, 37C, and 37D).
70  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 03, 2014, 02:32:59 am
The Texas House was not redistricted between 1921 and 1950, skipping redistricting after the 1930 and 1940 censuses.  This, despite the 1938 constitutional amendment to restrict the representatives to larger counties, including Bexar in the future state of Rio Grande.  In 1948, an amendment was passed that provided that if the legislature did not redistrict, the Legislative Redistricting Board would.  That provided enough incentive for the legislature to redistrict in 1951, applying the 1938 amendment for the first time; and in 1961, again applying it, as the caps really began to bite. 

Bexar was limited to 7 districts, instead of the 10 that its population warranted, and the restriction was even more severe in Harris and Dallas counties.  The seats taken from the big counties permitted undersized districts elsewhere.

Rio Grande 1961



In 1964, Reynolds v Sims required legislative districts to be relatively equal.  In Texas, Kilgarlin v Martin, applied the Reynolds v Sims decision to declare the 1938 amendment unconstitutional.  William Kilgarlin was the chairman of the Harris County Democratic party.  He would later become a Supreme Court Justice.  Crawford Martin was the Secretary of State, later Attorney General.

This meant that Bexar was given its full complement of 10 districts.  But elsewhere in Rio Grande districts had to expand and be redrawn.  Floterial districts were created for Bell, Travis, and Nueces counties.  Previously they had been given a whole number of seats, but now they needed to have their population augmented.  In addition a floterial anchored in Ector (Odessa) extended to include Reeves.

The number of house districts in the Rio Grande area was reduced from around 42 to around 40, with three gained in Bexar, 5 were lost elsewhere.

Rio Grande 1964



In 1967, Kilgarlin v Hill found the floterial districts to be contrary to Reynolds v Sims.  John Hill was Secretary of State.  He later became Attorney General, and then lost a bid to become governor in 1978, becoming the first Democrat to lose since 1869.  He was later elected Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

In the area that has become Rio Grande, most of the floterial districts were converted to multi-county multi-position districts.  For example, where before Travis had 3 representatives, and a floterial district shared with Burnet, it became a 4-representative 2-county district with Burnet.  In general, this was the pattern where the larger county had multiple representatives (eg Cameron, Nueces, and Travis).  This pattern of multi-county, multi-representative districts has not been used since.  Perhaps it made more sense before multi-seat at-large districts were ruled
unconstitutional.

In the case of Bell, and the Bell+Williamson floterial, Bell County was divided, with one district representing a full quota within the county, and a portion representing the surplus combined with Williamson.  This of course is the current practice.  Perhaps it made more sense when there were only two representatives involved.

Rio Grande 1967


71  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 03, 2014, 12:30:38 am
The Texas Constitution provides for three types of House districts.
(1) Single-county district with one or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county district with one representative.
(3) Multi-county district with zero or more counties entitled to less than one representative, and one or more counties where the district represents the surplus population from a Type (1) district, electing one representative.


Type 3 is a floterial district.  For example, if Adams County were entitled to 2.4 representatives, and its neighbor Baker County was entitled to 0.6 representatives, then District 1 would be Adams, with 2 representatives; and District 2 would be Adams+Baker, with 1 representative.  The voters in Adams could vote for all 3 representatives.  While a floterial district makes sense from an apportionment viewpoint, it doesn't make sense from an electoral viewpoint.  While Baker is providing 40% of the population for apportionment purposes, it only has 20% of the electorate, and will likely be dominated by the Adams voters.

The 1964 plan had 11 such floterial districts.  These were declared unconstitutional in 1967, and a new plan was adopted.

Consistent with RG's creation between 1970 and 1999, I struck pure floterial districts as unconstitutional. I left them both options 1 and 2.
Pre-1967, Type 1 (single county) and Type 3 (floterial) overlaid each other in a vertical stack.  If there had been single member election districts, then a county entitled to 4.5 representatives would have been divided into 4 districts of roughly equal population, and then all voters would have voted in the floterial district.  Of course we don't know if this would have been done, since floterial districts were declared unconstitutional before at-large elections.

Post-1967, and particularly Post-1971, the Texas Constitution is stretched to transform Type 1 and Type 3 districts to a horizontal configuration, such as the Type 1A district only covers the portion of the county with a population corresponding to a whole number of counties; and the Type 3A district includes an area of the county with the surplus population.

You don't have Type 1 districts except when a whole number of districts are coincident with county boundaries.

The rules in priority order order are:
(1) Don't violate the 10% rule;
(2) Don't split small counties (or create as few as possible)
(3) Don't create type 1A/3A districts (or create as few as possible)

Guidance given to the legislature appears to add a rule (1.5) Don't split large counties into 1A and 3A, except when necessary to comply with the 10% rule for that county.  That is, it's being treated as corollary to rule (1).  That is, if you can comply with (1) without splitting the county, then don't split it.

Quote
Quote
After the 1970 census, the legislature ignored the Texas Constitution, and started chopping up counties, under an interpretation that it was impossible to comply with equal protection and the Texas Constitution.  The Texas Supreme Court said that you could stretch the Texas Constitution by attaching a portion of a larger county containing its surplus above a whole number of representatives to smaller counties or similar surplus areas of other larger counties.  So you could replace floterial districts, with a district that contained only the surplus population.   We could call these districts quasi-floterial.

Division of counties may only be done to comply with equal protection (the 10% rule).  In the first plan approved after this ruling, there were two larger counties that had their surplus split between two quasi-floterial districts.  It is not clear that this complies with the stretched Texas Constitution or not.  When there were true floterial districts, there were instances where a surplus of a county was recognized in two floterial districts (eg a county had its own representative, plus was included in two floterial districts with two other sets of counties.

Your Williamson and Bastrop districts are examples of this.   Would the legislature have created a Bastrop district; a Lee, Fayette, Bastrop district; and a Bastrop, Caldwell district?  Likely not.  But on the other hand you avoid splitting smaller counties by doing so.  The legislature may have decided to split Bastrop and Williamson this way after discovering it avoids multiple splits of smaller counties.  That is, it is better to stretch the constitution than to break it.

The Texas legislature would likely have not placed Williamson and Bexar in quasi-floterial districts.  Current legal is that if the districts within a large county may be created within a 5% deviation (or technically to comply with a 10% overall range), then they must be kept within the county.   This is an overly localized analysis.  It in effect says that it is not necessary to use quasi-floterials for such large counties to achieve equal protection, therefore don't do so since it doesn't comply with the Texas Constitution.

On the other hand, from a larger perspective, it may avoid splitting a smaller county, which is in total violation of the constitution.  In the current Texas map, the split of Henderson County can be avoided, if a quasi-floterial district were drawn in Dallas and Ellis counties.  This would also improve overall equality, since Dallas is entitled to over 14 districts, and its districts tend to be oversized.
In the RG constituion I hypothesize that it is clear that adding excess from a large county should be considered before resorting to splits of a smaller county, but splits of smaller counties are not forbidden. I did have to split Atascosa to achieve population equality. However, not all the districts are within 5% of the quota. I used the 10% range rule instead since that provides some extra flexibility to avoid unneeded splits while keeping to federal law.
The Texas constitution has not been clarified.  But based on the stretched interpretation by the Texas Supreme court, it is clear that not splitting small counties is preferred,  But it is ignored.  Incidentally, the 10% rule comes from a Texas House redistricting case.  It happened that they could get within 10% by having one district over 105%, but didn't need to go down to 95%.  They then voluntarily created another district over 105%.   The 10% rule is too much like moving the bulls-eye to match where the arrows landed.  I'd prefer a 5% rule, with an only if necessary exception, but possibly permitting a one-way deviation up to 10%.  Any plan that has a smaller deviation would automatically beat one with a larger deviation greater than 5%. 

Quote
Quote
Your plan might be improved by extending a quasi-floterial district out from El Paso, and placing Webb and Jim Hogg in another.  This eliminates the need for the double quasi-floterial for Bexar.
It appears that one small county split is unavoidable.   Are three quasi-floterials preferable to a one double quasi-floterial?

I looked at a quasi-floterial El Paso district, since El Paso is almost exactly 15.5 districts. However, Val Verde is almost large enough for a HD by itself, and the counties between El Paso and Val Verde are just barely over the size of an HD. A quasi-floterial district to deal with the excess El Paso population would have helped in the east, but it forces a chop to Val Verde so I discarded the idea.

Removing Terrell still left the counties east of El Paso very slightly above the quota plus 5%, but not so much that I couldn't arrange the eastern part of RG to make it fit within the range. I quick look didn't show me that the El Paso qF and chop of Val Verde would eliminate more such chops in the east. If it did, then that would be preferable to the apportionment I did.
I had missed that I split Val Verde.

I converted the double qF of Bexar to a single qF, but added a split of Val Verde.  It is close question whether the double qF of Bexar is better than the split of Val Verde.  The constitution doesn't really suggest that Bexar has two surpluses that add to 0.196.  But on the other hand placing a county in two different floterial districts has been done in the past, and there were such qF districts in the 1971 map.

It could be argued that you aren't complying with the Texas Constitution with your Bexar-Kendall district since the Bexar surplus is way short of that needed to complete Kendall.  In effect, you are spreading the error over the rest of the many Bexar districts.  But I don't think that was ever a concern.  Originally most counties in East Texas had one or more representatives, and you could take the counties with surpluses of around 1/2 of a district and pair them.  So you might pair a district with a 0.60 surplus with another with 0.65, or 0.4 with 0.35.
72  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 02, 2014, 08:03:05 pm
To get a better feel for the dynamics of the hypothetical RG state, I created a legislature. I assumed that the new state would replicate much of the existing state of TX. To that end I gave RG a 150 seat house, just like TX has now. TX has very specific rules about how to apportion house districts to counties, so I kept those for RG. The population range across the entire map must not exceed 10% of the quota of one district. Counties larger than a district get as many whole districts as can fit within the population range. Counties smaller than a district can be combined with other smaller counties or fragments left over from a large county. In general no small counties or fragments can be chopped, but exceptions can be made if necessary to keep districts within range.

I used the 2010 data and made an apportionment following the above rules. Numbers on the map indicate an apportionment of more than one district to a county or group of counties. The range based on the apportionment is 9.7%.



TX has 31 Senators, but to make things easy I reduced it to 30 Senators. The senate districts were formed by grouping five house districts together, keeping the districts within large counties as much as possible. This is roughly how OH does its three-to-one nested districts. The plus indicates a house district that was shifted out of Bell county which has six house districts. That extra is attached to the adjacent Williamson county with a minus sign. The house district with Falls, Milam, and a small part of Williamson is used in forming a different Senate district.



A detailed map with partisan and ethnic data is forthcoming. Smiley
When was the Rio Grande constitution written?

Historically, Texas has not had 150 House members.  The current constitution was written in 1876 and provided for 31 senators, which could never be increased.

The House was to have 93 members, which could be increased but never more than a ratio of one per 15,000 members, and never beyond 150.

By 1900, the population was sufficient to have 150 members representing more than 15,000 persons, but there were only 133 representatives.  No apportionment occurred after the 1910 census; but following the 1920 census, a House of 150 members was established.

In 1999, the constitution was amended to its current version which provides for specifically 31 senators and 150 representatives, since the conditions for smaller numbers had long since passed (there was never the ability to change the number of senators, but perhaps the authors of the constitution wanted to make sure.  A goal of the 1876 constitution is to restrict the government, so making it explicit that the 31 could not be increased was probably deliberate.

The instructions didn't say when the hypothetical states were created, though it was before 2010. I hypothesized that the creation was after 1970, so the impact of the OMOV decisions was known. However I chose to place the division before the 1999 change to the TX constitution (or a most concurrent with it) so that that amendment wouldn't be part of the constitution. Instead RG would reduce the Senate to 30 and use OH-styled nesting for  the SDs. I could have gone with a 90-member House in line with the average of the states, but I specifically wanted a higher degree of granularity and adoption of the House description from TX worked towards that end.
This is the 1961 House map for the area of Rio Grande



There are 45 or so House districts (and around 12 senate districts).  Bexar was clipped at that time, and if the initial House had been tripled it would have pushed El Paso, Nueces, Travis, Hidalgo, and perhaps Cameron into the cap.  The districts aren't uncomfortably vast, so I think they would have modified the language of that time.   On the other hand they would have wanted a larger senate.

The initial size of 93 representatives and 31 would have permitted nesting.  I'm not sure if there was ever nesting since senate districts could not split counties (in 1961, Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant were each a senate district).

An odd number of senate members is preferred, since that eliminates the possibility of the Lieutenant Governor have to use his casting vote.  An even number is OK for the House, since Speaker doesn't vote unless there is a tie, and removing him leaves the normal voting number as odd.

So the Rio Grande Constititution of 1962 provided for a House of 50 members, and senate of 25 members.  The size of the house could be increased by multiples of 5 (which would provide for nesting for groups of 5 senate districts), until the House reached 75 members.

The House would then increase by multiples of 6, and the senate by multiples of two when they reached 105 and 35,  The House would then increase by multiples of 7 until it reached a maximum of 140.

The size of the House would be automatically calculated to ensure that it was the smallest size that would provide more than 1 representative per 50,000 persons.

I realize that this has nothing to do with your purpose, but I had initially thought you hadn't followed the current rationalized interpretation of the Texas Constitution.  It is ambiguous whether you did or not.  It is particularly hard to do so because of the large number of house members, the constrained number of counties either side of the I-35 corridor, and the particular concentration of population in the cities in South Texas, and relatively large size of counties.

In Texas, there are choke points around the major metropolitan areas.  It used to be harder in East Texas, because of the irregular shapes of counties and numbers of counties per district.  As the population per district has increased, the number of counties per district has increased and it has become quite flexible.

Incidentally, the petitions for the 6 California's initiative have been submitted, and are in the process of being counted.  It will be real close whether it has enough signatures to qualify.  But if it qualifies and passes, I'd be surprised if Jefferson and West California adopt the same configurations for their legislatures.
73  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: September 02, 2014, 03:41:00 am
To get a better feel for the dynamics of the hypothetical RG state, I created a legislature. I assumed that the new state would replicate much of the existing state of TX. To that end I gave RG a 150 seat house, just like TX has now. TX has very specific rules about how to apportion house districts to counties, so I kept those for RG. The population range across the entire map must not exceed 10% of the quota of one district. Counties larger than a district get as many whole districts as can fit within the population range. Counties smaller than a district can be combined with other smaller counties or fragments left over from a large county. In general no small counties or fragments can be chopped, but exceptions can be made if necessary to keep districts within range.

I used the 2010 data and made an apportionment following the above rules. Numbers on the map indicate an apportionment of more than one district to a county or group of counties. The range based on the apportionment is 9.7%.



TX has 31 Senators, but to make things easy I reduced it to 30 Senators. The senate districts were formed by grouping five house districts together, keeping the districts within large counties as much as possible. This is roughly how OH does its three-to-one nested districts. The plus indicates a house district that was shifted out of Bell county which has six house districts. That extra is attached to the adjacent Williamson county with a minus sign. The house district with Falls, Milam, and a small part of Williamson is used in forming a different Senate district.



A detailed map with partisan and ethnic data is forthcoming. Smiley
When was the Rio Grande constitution written?

Historically, Texas has not had 150 House members.  The current constitution was written in 1876 and provided for 31 senators, which could never be increased.

The House was to have 93 members, which could be increased but never more than a ratio of one per 15,000 members, and never beyond 150.

By 1900, the population was sufficient to have 150 members representing more than 15,000 persons, but there were only 133 representatives.  No apportionment occurred after the 1910 census; but following the 1920 census, a House of 150 members was established.

In 1999, the constitution was amended to its current version which provides for specifically 31 senators and 150 representatives, since the conditions for smaller numbers had long since passed (there was never the ability to change the number of senators, but perhaps the authors of the constitution wanted to make sure.  A goal of the 1876 constitution is to restrict the government, so making it explicit that the 31 could not be increased was probably deliberate.

Following the 1930 census it was found that Bexar, Harris, and Dallas would have more than 7 representatives, and the constitution was amended to limit them to one representative per 100,000 persons.  Despite passage of the amendment in 1938, there was no redistricting after the 1940 census (and there had been none after the 1930 census) so redistricting in 1951 was the first to apply the amendment.  At that time, Harris County had over 800,000 persons and given an 8th representative, though based on population it would have been entitled to 16.  Dallas and Bexar were limited to 7 each, though they would have been entitled to 12 and 10 respectively.  Tarrant had also reached the limit of 7.   While Harris had one representative per 101,000 persons, the smaller counties had one representative per 45,000. 

The 1951 redistricting did provide for election by place in multi-representative counties.  Like, the US Constitution, the Texas Constitution does not provide for the manner of election, but only for apportionment.

By 1961, the 1938 amendment was beginning to severely bite into representation of the larger counties, and instead of 19, 15, 11, and 8 representatives, Harris, Dallas, Bexar, and Tarrant were apportioned 12, 9, 7, and 7 representatives respectively.  A curiosity of the 1938 amendment was that it set a fixed ratio of one representative per 100,000.  Once the statewide ratio exceeded 100,000 (as it did in 1990), the 1938 amendment would have been moot - or possibly give additional representation to larger counties, inverting the effect.

The OMOV decisions overturned the 1938 amendment, and in 1964, the legislature did provide for 19, 14, 10, and 8 representatives for the larger counties.  They appear to have truncated 19.46, 14.89, 10.76, and 8.43, but that might be preferred to using a floterial district for the surplus population.  The 19 representatives were elected from 3 subdistricts, electing 7, 6, and 6 representatives by place within the district.

The Texas Constitution provides for three types of House districts.
(1) Single-county district with one or more representatives.
(2) Multi-county district with one representative.
(3) Multi-county district with zero or more counties entitled to less than one representative, and one or more counties where the district represents the surplus population from a Type (1) district, electing one representative.

Type 3 is a floterial district.  For example, if Adams County were entitled to 2.4 representatives, and its neighbor Baker County was entitled to 0.6 representatives, then District 1 would be Adams, with 2 representatives; and District 2 would be Adams+Baker, with 1 representative.  The voters in Adams could vote for all 3 representatives.  While a floterial district makes sense from an apportionment viewpoint, it doesn't make sense from an electoral viewpoint.  While Baker is providing 40% of the population for apportionment purposes, it only has 20% of the electorate, and will likely be dominated by the Adams voters.

The 1964 plan had 11 such floterial districts.  These were declared unconstitutional in 1967, and a new plan was adopted.

In some instances a portion of the more populous county was detached and added to the smaller counties.  For example Bell had a single-member district, plus there was a floterial district for Bell and Williamson.   Bell was split, with the major part electing one representative, and the remnant along with Williamson electing another.   This pattern was used when the larger county had one representative plus a fraction.  It in effect, cut off an area comprising the surplus population and attached it to the smaller counties.  This is still current practice.

In other cases, a mult-member single county and an associated floterial district were combined into a multi-county multi-member district.  For example a 3-member Nueces district, was combined with a Nueces + Kleberg floterial district, to create a 4-member Nueces + Kleberg district, where Kleberg voters would vote for all 4 members.  While there is some risk of Kleberg being swamped, there might be balancing strategy of setting was position aside for Kleberg.  If one party did so, then Kleberg voters might overwhelmingly ignore party when voting.

After the 1970 census, the legislature ignored the Texas Constitution, and started chopping up counties, under an interpretation that it was impossible to comply with equal protection and the Texas Constitution.  The Texas Supreme Court said that you could stretch the Texas Constitution by attaching a portion of a larger county containing its surplus above a whole number of representatives to smaller counties or similar surplus areas of other larger counties.  So you could replace floterial districts, with a district that contained only the surplus population.   We could call these districts quasi-floterial.

Division of counties may only be done to comply with equal protection (the 10% rule).  In the first plan approved after this ruling, there were two larger counties that had their surplus split between two quasi-floterial districts.  It is not clear that this complies with the stretched Texas Constitution or not.  When there were true floterial districts, there were instances where a surplus of a county was recognized in two floterial districts (eg a county had its own representative, plus was included in two floterial districts with two other sets of counties.

Your Williamson and Bastrop districts are examples of this.   Would the legislature have created a Bastrop district; a Lee, Fayette, Bastrop district; and a Bastrop, Caldwell district?  Likely not.  But on the other hand you avoid splitting smaller counties by doing so.  The legislature may have decided to split Bastrop and Williamson this way after discovering it avoids multiple splits of smaller counties.  That is, it is better to stretch the constitution than to break it.

The Texas legislature would likely have not placed Williamson and Bexar in quasi-floterial districts.  Current legal is that if the districts within a large county may be created within a 5% deviation (or technically to comply with a 10% overall range), then they must be kept within the county.   This is an overly localized analysis.  It in effect says that it is not necessary to use quasi-floterials for such large counties to achieve equal protection, therefore don't do so since it doesn't comply with the Texas Constitution.

On the other hand, from a larger perspective, it may avoid splitting a smaller county, which is in total violation of the constitution.  In the current Texas map, the split of Henderson County can be avoided, if a quasi-floterial district were drawn in Dallas and Ellis counties.  This would also improve overall equality, since Dallas is entitled to over 14 districts, and its districts tend to be oversized.

Your plan might be improved by extending a quasi-floterial district out from El Paso, and placing Webb and Jim Hogg in another.  This eliminates the need for the double quasi-floterial for Bexar.
It appears that one small county split is unavoidable.   Are three quasi-floterials preferable to a one double quasi-floterial?

Also in the early 1970s, the use of at-large elections was ruled unconstitutional if it violates the ability of minority voter to elect representatives.  After an analysis was done, it was determined that this was the case in all but Hidalgo County.  The Texas Supreme Court has said that there is nothing in the constitution that prevents election from single member districts.  Under early plans, districts within a county were numbered 22-A, 22-B, etc. to recognize that they were subdistricts for election purposes, of the districts specified in the constitution.  This has since switched to a simple numbering from 1 to 150.
74  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Draw the Congressional Districts of the Alternate States! on: August 31, 2014, 08:35:23 am
That seems like an excellent redistricting plan, Cranberry. Smiley The borders look very nice, so if it's also VRA-compliant there's no need to look any further!

Muon, it might seem surprising in light of statewide results but yes, local Democrats tend to have the upper hand in this area of Texas. Just look at the House results: Democrats hold 7 of 11 seats even despite living in a nominally R-gerrymandered map. The same is true in the State Legislature. According to my calculations, Democrats hold almost 3/4 of the Texas House of Representatives seats in the area corresponding to RG.

The Dems might well be down one additional US House seat but for the VRA requirements on the state of TX as a whole. It would be easy to take my map and make both of the swing seats, solid R without compromising any of the R seats or changing the VRA seats, which a Pub gerrymander certainly would do. The Texas HoR is a court-ordered map and after the favorable 2012 election the Dems hold 30 of the 47 seats in the RG counties (64%). I don't know how many of those are in play for 2014.
Two: 43 and 117
In several 2nd tier targets, 34, 78, 45, and 54 the challenger party doesn't have a candidates.

Edit: It looks like statewide VRA compliance also affects the TX HoR. For example Bexar county is 43.1% SSVR, but 7 of the 10 House districts are drawn with an SSVR majority, this leads to the current 8D-2R margin. Yet overall the county is close to national average, being about 1% more R than the nation in 2008. That would project a roughly equal split of House districts between the parties. Given the numerous easy VRA districts that can be drawn along the Rio Grande, I doubt that RG would have to gerrymander Bexar to meet the VRA.
Those seven districts converge on an area a couple of miles across, with districts fanning out and wrapping around the city.   The Republicans managed to win HD-117 in 2010.  Based on the west side it had relatively high growth, and would logically have shed population on the south side.  Instead, the court ordered northern areas to be dropped, which pushed the other two Republican seats into that area.

The legislature plan increased the HCVAP population, while decreasing the SSVR percentage.  The claim was that this was that this was to add "non-mobilized" Hispanic voters.  But I would infer that there were more non-Spanish-surnamed Hispanic voters.   Someone with a last name of Abbott or Bush might not be targeted by "mobilizers" or would probably be more likely to vote Republican.

The 8th district is held by a black Democrat, Ruth McClendon.   The district includes the only area of high black concentration in San Antonio, but is only 28% black VAP.  If you increased the HVAP in the district you could flip the district in the primary.
75  General Politics / Political Geography & Demographics / Re: Weighted Voting For Congress on: August 30, 2014, 11:28:39 pm
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.
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 ... 228


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines