Future electoral votes?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:38:13 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Future electoral votes?
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: Future electoral votes?  (Read 19966 times)
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 26, 2004, 05:44:45 PM »

By my calculations, by the 2012 election, the following will happen:

- Florida will gain an electoral vote.
- Iowa will lose an electoral vote.
- New York will lose an electoral vote.
- Ohio will lose an electoral vote.
- Texas will gain an electoral vote.
- Utah will gain an electoral vote.

That's using census estimations for 2003...which obviously won't necessarily be 100% accurate.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 26, 2004, 05:58:04 PM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural Nor Cal).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,867
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2004, 07:03:39 PM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural Nor Cal).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.

That isn't going to fix anything. What about Republicans in California who don't own land?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2004, 09:07:11 PM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural Nor Cal).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.

I doubt that Cali. will gain more than a couple of more EV's.  People are going to keep moving to these ultra-sprawled out super-cities.
Logged
A18
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,794
Political Matrix
E: 9.23, S: -6.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2004, 09:37:53 PM »

Virginia will have 37 electoral votes by 2020

Well, no we won't, but still
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 27, 2004, 06:01:55 AM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=nor%20cal" onmouseover="window.status='Nor Cal'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Nor Cal</a>).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.

I doubt that Cali. will gain more than a couple of more EV's.  People are going to keep moving to these ultra-sprawled out super-cities.

It is in 30 years, so it's not impossible. Many people will continue moving west, and California remains the most attractive option for a lot of people.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 27, 2004, 10:24:07 AM »

prediction: Indiana will boom when people realize how cool it is Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy Wink
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 27, 2004, 10:55:44 AM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=nor%20cal" onmouseover="window.status='Nor Cal'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Nor Cal</a>).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.

I doubt that Cali. will gain more than a couple of more EV's.  People are going to keep moving to these ultra-sprawled out super-cities.

It is in 30 years, so it's not impossible. Many people will continue moving west, and California remains the most attractive option for a lot of people.

Once again, your map does not take into account possible social changes, technological advances, etc.

These factors are going to make small cities more atractive and the most economicvally innovative states will win out.

Those states are Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Georgia.
Logged
elcorazon
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,402


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 27, 2004, 12:59:37 PM »

hey super, regarding your signature, she's an attractive girl and all, but couldn't you find a more flattering photo?
Logged
Akno21
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 9,066
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 27, 2004, 03:06:13 PM »


It's scary to think that CA could hold almost 15% of the votes in the EC in another 30 years...  I would really love to see the state broken up, for the benefit of the residents (I grew up in rural <a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=nor%20cal" onmouseover="window.status='<a href="http://www.srch-results.com/lm/rtl.asp?k=nor%20cal" onmouseover="window.status='Nor Cal'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Nor Cal</a>'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;">Nor Cal</a>).  Everything is run by SF and LA; there aren't enough votes in the rest of the state to overrule or even balance out their votes.   [ /whining ]

Thank you! This is my argument for only letting landowners vote in one branch of state legislatures.

I doubt that Cali. will gain more than a couple of more EV's.  People are going to keep moving to these ultra-sprawled out super-cities.

It is in 30 years, so it's not impossible. Many people will continue moving west, and California remains the most attractive option for a lot of people.

Once again, your map does not take into account possible social changes, technological advances, etc.

These factors are going to make small cities more atractive and the most economicvally innovative states will win out.

Those states are Minnesota, North Carolina, Virginia, Washington and Georgia.

I should have said somewhere that I only used previous EV data, and I only brought in common sense to break ties.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,584
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 27, 2004, 03:06:33 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2004, 03:09:20 PM by supersoulty »

hey super, regarding your signature, she's an attractive girl and all, but couldn't you find a more flattering photo?

Probably.  I don't know.  She looks cute in that photo.

P.S.  What I said about her being the best looking is true, but I really just put that in there to piss of all the Jenna fans.  Smiley
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 27, 2004, 04:27:15 PM »

I took the 2000 census and the 2003 update from the census. If I project the growth between 2000 and 2003 to April 1, 2010 I get the following changes to Congressional apportionment.

AL -1 (8 EV)
AZ +1 (11 EV)
CA +2 (57 EV)
FL +2 (29 EV)
GA +1 (16 EV)
IL -1 (20 EV)
IA -1 (6 EV)
LA -1 (8 EV)
MA -1 (11 EV)
MO -1 (10 EV)
NV +1 (6 EV)
NY -2 (29 EV)
OH -2 (18 EV)
PA -1 (20 EV)
TX +3 (38 EV)
UT +1 (6 EV)
I agree, except that New York would narrowly keep their 28th congressman ahead of California's 55th.

Also, Alabama could keep its 7th, and Minnesota could lose its 8th with a narrow shift.  These latter two are interesting, because Minnesota will have about a CD's worth greater population, but could end up with the same, one more or two more representatives.


The last few seats I apportioned were:
432 - CA 55
433 - PA 18
434 - MN 8
435 - MI 15

The next in line were
NY 28
IL 19
AL 7

Then after a gap
CA 56
MD 9
OH 17
TX 36

It's pretty easy to move any of the last four out and the next three in. Before year's end, I expect the Census Bureau to release the July 1, 2004 estimates. I'll rework my projections at that point.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,410
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 27, 2004, 04:49:53 PM »

hey super, regarding your signature, she's an attractive girl and all, but couldn't you find a more flattering photo?

Probably.  I don't know.  She looks cute in that photo.

P.S. What I said about her being the best looking is true, but I really just put that in there to piss of all the Jenna fans. Smiley

I think it's a cute picture Smiley

I like perky lasses Cheesy

(And Barbara>Jenna Grin)
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 27, 2004, 04:55:50 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2004, 06:26:48 PM by Bogart »

Based upon Census estimates for 2010, this is how many reps each state would have after reapportionment. Add 2 to each for the EV. These are based upon the formula actually used for reapportionment.

AK   1
AL   7
AZ   8
AR   4
CA   58
CO   7
CT   5
DE   1
DC   0
FL   26
GA   13
HI   2
ID   2
IL   18
IN   9
IA   4
KS   4
KY   6
LA   7
ME   2
MD   8
MA   9
MI   14
MN   7
MS   4
MO   9
MT   2
NE   3
NV   3
NH   2
NJ   13
NM   3
NY   27
NC   13
ND   1
OH   16
OK   5
OR   6
PA   18
RI   2
SC   6
SD   1
TN   9
TX   34
UT   4
VT   1
VA   11
WA   10
WV   3
WI   8
WY   1
TTL   435
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 27, 2004, 06:56:13 PM »
« Edited: October 27, 2004, 07:09:32 PM by Bogart »

Here is the 2020 House:

AK-1  AL- 7  AZ-8  AR- 4  CA- 64  CO- 6  CT- 5  DE- 1  FL- 26  GA- 13  HI- 2  ID- 2  IL- 18  IN- 9  IA- 4  KS- 4  KY-6  LA- 7  ME- 2  MD- 8  MA- 8  MI- 14  MN- 7  MS- 4  MO- 8  MT-2
NE- 3  NV- 3  NH- 2  NJ- 12  NM- 3  NY- 25  NC- 12  ND- 1 
OH- 16  OK- 5  OR- 6  PA- 17  RI- 2  SC- 6  SD- 1  TN- 9 
TX- 34  UT- 4  VT- 1  VA- 11  WA- 11 WV- 3  WI- 8  WY- 1

What's interesting is--assuming the Dem states remain Dem states for the most part and the GOP states GOP states--is that the losses in NY, PA, MI, MA and NJ will be made up by huge gains in CA.
Logged
danwxman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,532


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 27, 2004, 08:21:54 PM »

Ohio will never have more electoral votes then Pennsylvania. They will probably both fall to 18 in 10 years or so.
Logged
Dave from Michigan
9iron768
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,298
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 27, 2004, 08:26:53 PM »

Based upon Census estimates for 2010, this is how many reps each state would have after reapportionment. Add 2 to each for the EV. These are based upon the formula actually used for reapportionment.

AK   1
AL   7
AZ   8
AR   4
CA   58
CO   7
CT   5
DE   1
DC   0
FL   26
GA   13
HI   2
ID   2
IL   18
IN   9
IA   4
KS   4
KY   6
LA   7
ME   2
MD   8
MA   9
MI   14
MN   7
MS   4
MO   9
MT   2
NE   3
NV   3
NH   2
NJ   13
NM   3
NY   27
NC   13
ND   1
OH   16
OK   5
OR   6
PA   18
RI   2
SC   6
SD   1
TN   9
TX   34
UT   4
VT   1
VA   11
WA   10
WV   3
WI   8
WY   1
TTL   435



what Michigan is going to lose another seat in 2010. 
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 27, 2004, 11:41:49 PM »

Based upon Census estimates for 2010, this is how many reps each state would have after reapportionment. Add 2 to each for the EV. These are based upon the formula actually used for reapportionment.

AK   1
AL   7
AZ   8
AR   4
CA   58
CO   7
CT   5
DE   1
DC   0
FL   26
GA   13
HI   2
ID   2
IL   18
IN   9
IA   4
KS   4
KY   6
LA   7
ME   2
MD   8
MA   9
MI   14
MN   7
MS   4
MO   9
MT   2
NE   3
NV   3
NH   2
NJ   13
NM   3
NY   27
NC   13
ND   1
OH   16
OK   5
OR   6
PA   18
RI   2
SC   6
SD   1
TN   9
TX   34
UT   4
VT   1
VA   11
WA   10
WV   3
WI   8
WY   1
TTL   435



what Michigan is going to lose another seat in 2010. 
As i mentioned earlier, MI is sitting on the bubble for 2010. Using the 2003 census estimates and projecting it forward to 2010, put MI as the 435th seat to given out. It would take very little change to move them to seat number 436, meaning that they lose one seat.

I've seen the Census projections for 2010 that Bogart uses. I'm not convinced of the model, since it was largely set by patterns in the 1990's. I've used the 2003 estimates which should reflect new demographic patterns since 2000. For instance, recent estimates greatly reduce the rate of growth in CA. The older projections have 2-4 more house seats for CA than do projections based on the new estimates.
Logged
DaleC76
Rookie
**
Posts: 179


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 28, 2004, 12:20:15 AM »

Didn't CA just barely recieve its extra EV in the last census?  I seem to remember a big deal being made that if it had missed, it would have been the first time ever (or in a long time).
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 28, 2004, 04:32:52 PM »
« Edited: October 28, 2004, 04:35:10 PM by Bogart »

As i mentioned earlier, MI is sitting on the bubble for 2010. Using the 2003 census estimates and projecting it forward to 2010, put MI as the 435th seat to given out. It would take very little change to move them to seat number 436, meaning that they lose one seat.

I've seen the Census projections for 2010 that Bogart uses. I'm not convinced of the model, since it was largely set by patterns in the 1990's. I've used the 2003 estimates which should reflect new demographic patterns since 2000. For instance, recent estimates greatly reduce the rate of growth in CA. The older projections have 2-4 more house seats for CA than do projections based on the new estimates.

Yeah, there are any number of projections. I've done this exercise with a couple different sets. All you can really predict for sure are trends. The trend is that MI will lose another seat. Whether it will be in 2010 or 2020 is impossible to say.

What is interesting, is that these projections would indicate that MT picks up a second seat, but MI and PA lose seats. It's all about priority values.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 30, 2004, 06:33:50 AM »

I agree, except that New York would narrowly keep their 28th congressman ahead of California's 55th.

Also, Alabama could keep its 7th, and Minnesota could lose its 8th with a narrow shift.  These latter two are interesting, because Minnesota will have about a CD's worth greater population, but could end up with the same, one more or two more representatives.


The last few seats I apportioned were:
432 - CA 55
433 - PA 18
434 - MN 8
435 - MI 15

The next in line were
NY 28
IL 19
AL 7

Then after a gap
CA 56
MD 9
OH 17
TX 36

It's pretty easy to move any of the last four out and the next three in. Before year's end, I expect the Census Bureau to release the July 1, 2004 estimates. I'll rework my projections at that point.
How did you project the 2010 population?

I used   

   p2010 = c2000 + (e2003 - c2000) * (10/3.25)

The census estimates are for July 1st, the census for April 1st, so there is 3.25 years between the census and the 2003 estimate.  If you use 3 instead of 3.25, it will increase the projected increase by 8.3%.  For California, this would amount to about 1% more people.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 30, 2004, 07:02:18 AM »

Didn't CA just barely recieve its extra EV in the last census?  I seem to remember a big deal being made that if it had missed, it would have been the first time ever (or in a long time).
Yes, it barely did.  Its population growth had somewhat slowed, but picked up some at the end of the decade (for the decade its growth was 13.8%, vs. 13.2% for the US as a whole).  Ordinarily, you would expect a states apportionment to increase by the relative difference between its growth, and that of the country as a whole.  For California, this would mean:

   53 * (1.138/1.132) = 53.28 (which would still round to 53).

But in 2000, California was entitled to slightly more than 53 representatives.  In effect, California in 1990 was part way to getting a 54th seat, so that it didn't need to gain as much.

Also, in 2000 the census bureau did a more complete count than was anticipated, so California may have had a larger population than had been estimated.

Finally, apportionment is based not only on a state's relative share of the US population, but its relative share compared to that of other states.  Arguably, California and North Carolina did not deserve their final seats in 2000 - but no other state could make a better case.
Logged
Bogart
bogart414
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 603
United States


Political Matrix
E: -0.13, S: -5.39

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 30, 2004, 11:28:40 AM »

It all depends on what population size you use to calculate priority values for each state gaining an additional seat after the first seat mandated by the Constitution. To do so, you take your priority multipliers and mulitiply them by the estimated population. Once you have these, you simply sort them in decending order until you reach the desired number of seats to allocate--435.

For this, I simply used available population projections provided by the Census Bureau. As was pointed out, the model projections I used may be flawed. Suffice to say, over the long haul, CA will gain seats at the expense of eastern states like PA, NY and MI. Interestingly enough, MT would probably also gain an additional seat in the projection I used.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 30, 2004, 03:22:04 PM »

I agree, except that New York would narrowly keep their 28th congressman ahead of California's 55th.

Also, Alabama could keep its 7th, and Minnesota could lose its 8th with a narrow shift.  These latter two are interesting, because Minnesota will have about a CD's worth greater population, but could end up with the same, one more or two more representatives.


The last few seats I apportioned were:
432 - CA 55
433 - PA 18
434 - MN 8
435 - MI 15

The next in line were
NY 28
IL 19
AL 7

Then after a gap
CA 56
MD 9
OH 17
TX 36

It's pretty easy to move any of the last four out and the next three in. Before year's end, I expect the Census Bureau to release the July 1, 2004 estimates. I'll rework my projections at that point.
How did you project the 2010 population?

I used   

   p2010 = c2000 + (e2003 - c2000) * (10/3.25)

The census estimates are for July 1st, the census for April 1st, so there is 3.25 years between the census and the 2003 estimate.  If you use 3 instead of 3.25, it will increase the projected increase by 8.3%.  For California, this would amount to about 1% more people.
Your formula assumes a linear increase. I assume that the percentage increase is compounded like interest. I first find the annual rate of increase using

rate = (e2003/c2000)^(1/3.25) - 1

Then I find the projection to 2010 using

e2010 = c2000 * (rate + 1)^10

Financial functions in spreadsheets take care of both these functions directly.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: November 02, 2004, 07:34:58 AM »

Your formula assumes a linear increase. I assume that the percentage increase is compounded like interest.
Fair enough.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.08 seconds with 11 queries.