Dividing the US into regions

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was thinking about calculating the results of US Presidential elections by regions, and see if we could find consistent large-scale patterns. However, the main problem remains : how to define the US regions ? I'd like this thread to be a place to discuss about whta would be the most correct region breakdown.

First of all, here are a couple of possibilities I've studied.


"Big" regions

The first option is to draw very bold regional borders, like in this map, which is maybe the most basic :

Or in this one, which I personally prefer :

The latter is probably better because plain States( from ND to KS) has a lot more to do with places like MT and WY than with MN or MO and because the West Coast is a very different area than Mountain West. Still, both are pretty unperfect : the South's differences aren't visible, same for the West, which comprises both WY and NM.


A try : demographic regions

When compiling an excel spreadsheet about historical US populations, I wanted to regroup States with similar demographic patterns. The results were rather succesful, depite some possible mistakes :

NB Northeast and West Coast are 2 separate regions in this map, I just didn't have enough colors.


Small regions

This one is my most "intuitive" map, but other ones are to consider.

These are the regions used by the Census bureau.

And those are regions used by Nate Silver, which I initially didn't like but now realized that they really make some sense.

Finally, a couple of alternate modifications that could be done to the map (light shades mean hypothetical scenarioes) :

Expanding the "deep South" region to some more States and adding MD and DE to the Coast.

Creating a broad "appalachian" region with some hypothetical expansions in the South or the Rust Belt.

Creating a "ol' West" and a "new West" region (note that light States can be merged to become a third region).

Another, more North/South division.

So, now, I'd like you to discuss these few proposals, explain which make more sense to you and why, and possibly explore new possibilities.

[Thomas D]

Of those I think the first small regions map is the one that makes the most sense.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

Some combination or variation of these, perhaps...

[J. J.]

Dark red:  The South.  The states that had legal slavery in 1860, and widespread slavery. Those states south of the Potomac-Ohio river line and whose eastern borders are on or to the east of the Mississippi or that border the Gulf of Mexico.  (Generally R)

Gray:  The Northeast.  (You could argue that WV has moved out of the Northeast, because it use to have a Northeast voting pattern.) States to the north and east Potomac-Ohio river line entirely.  (Generally D)

Light blue:  The Heartland.  This is the core of the Mid-West.  This is usually where the election is decided.  (A mix.  No party has ever swept this region since 1972.)

Green:  The West.  States that don't border the Mississippi River, but are west of it, and border states that do.  There western border is not on the Pacific.  Texas may move into this zone in the next several elections.  (Generally R)

Dark blue:  The Pacific Rim.  States that border the Pacific Ocean.  (Generally D)

[muon2]

For tracking population shifts, I use 9 regions. Three regions (New England, Mid-Atlantic, Great Lakes) are growing at about a third the national average. Two regions (Great Plains, Delta South) are growing at little over half the national average. One region (Pacific) is growing at close to the national average. One region (Atlantic South) is growing at about one and a half times the national average. Two regions (Southwest and Rocky Mountain) are growing at about twice the national average.

[Ban my account ffs!]

That's my take on the issue.

Most importantly, I include North Dakota in the "Upper Midwest and Great Lakes" region because the two largest population centers are on the border with Minnesota and both have significant sister populations in Minnesota.  Because of that, they are more culturally Minnesotan.

South Dakota, on the other hand, is much different.  It was also settled by different ethnic groups, is more conservative, and is more similar to Nebraska than even North Dakota or Minnesota or Iowa.

I always have reservations about Kansas/Missouri because of Kansas City or St. Louis with Illinois... but those cities have dealt with the state lines since their founding.

I tried to delve up the population into somewhat even strips, though Pacifica definitely has the highest population by a long shot.  Most importantly, I wanted to detract from giving one state too much power within a region, which is why Texas and Florida are their own separate regions.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, there are several very interesting things there.

First of all, there is something to see with New England. I have the feeling that Libertas made a right point by separing Northern NE from Southern, and adding the latter to the Northeast. Politically, I also think Massachusetts is closer to NY than to Maine. On the other hand, a 3 States region is a bit small for these standards.

Also, I'm very annoyed by the hypothetical region going from MD to FL by not comprising SC and GA... I think it would make sense, but I'd try to avoid non contiguous regions. That's a true dilemma...

To Muon, I almost agree with your demographic map, but I'd rather put MN in the Great Lakes, WV in the Delta South and NV in the Southwest. I think I'm gonna edit my spreadsheet using those regions.

Then many other things to discuss, but it'd be far too long (for example, I'd tend to discard a West Coast including Nevada, a rust belt including Illinois, a two-States region in the Northwest corner or a Outer South with Louisiana, but all this is debatable). Now, to make some progress, let's try to start with the most basic possible map and then proceed by a State-by-State aproach. Here is the map that will allow us to begin :



So here are what I'd call "basic regions" : the groups of States, that, under almost every scenario, are associated together. Grey States are those that could fit in several regions. Note also that basic regions may be merged together : for example the light blue region mab be associated with the 40%-shade blue region or with the dark red one.

I'll go with the region's name so that we make no confusion (from the lightest shade to the darkest) :


North New England
South New England
Mid Atlantic
Southern West Coast

West Deep Sout
Deep South
Appalachia
Rust Belt

Midwest
Plains
Big Sky
Northwest

Southeast


Now, the main thing is to discuss the several possibilities for grey States, that's what I'll try to do now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

New York

- Merge it with PA and NJ, and possibly with Mid Atlantic.
- Merge it with South New England, NJ, and possibly Mid Atlantic.
- Merge it with SNE, NNE, NJ and MiAt, and possibly PA
- Merge it with SNE and NNE

New Jersey

- Merge it with NY, and MiAt, with or without NE and PA (but with at least one of those)
- Merge it with NY, PA and possibly MiAt
- Merge it with MiAt and SEC
- Merge it with NY, SNE and possiply MiAt

Pennsylvania

- Merge it with NY and NJ, possibly with NE (only the Sout or both) and/or MiAt
- Merge it with Rust Belt and Michigan
- Merge it with Rust Belt and Appalachia, with or without MI
- Merge it with NJ and MiAt

Michigan

- Merge it with Midwest, with or without MO
- Merge it with Rust Belt and possibly PA
- Merge it with RB, PA and Appalachia

Tennessee

- Merge it with Appalachia, AR and MO, with or without OK or Rust Belt (but not both)
- Merge it with the Deep South, possibly with WDS and AR (at least one of those)
- Merge it with DS, AR and TX, possibly OK
- Merge it with Appalachia and Rust Belt

Arkansas

- Merge it with Appalachia, TN and MO, with or without OK or Rust Belt (but not both)
- Merge it with DS, possibly with WDS and TN
- Merge it with DS, TN and TW, possibly OK

Missouri

- Merge it with Midwest, with or without MI
- Merge it with AR, TN, App, with possibly RB or OK (but not both)

Texas

- Merge it with DS and WDS
- Merge it with DS, AR, and possibly TN or WDS
- Merge it with DS, OK, AR and TN
- Merge it with Ok, Plains, Big Sky, Utah, AK and possibly CO
- Merge it to Southwest, NV, and possibly CO and UT

Oklahoma

- Merge it with AR, MO, TN and App
- Merge it with TX, AR, DS and possibly TN
- Merge it with Plains
- Merge it with TX, Plains, Big Sky, UT, AK and possibly CO

Colorado

- Merge it with Southwest, NV, and possibly UT
- Merge it with Southwest, NV and CA and possibly OR and WA
- Merge it with UT and BS, and possibly NV and AK
- Merge it with Plains, BS, UT, and possibly OK, TX, and AK

Utah

- Merge it with BS and possibly AK, CO or NV
- Merge it with BS, Plains, AK and possibly CO, OK and TX
- Merge it with CO, NV, SW and possibly TX

Nevada

- Merge it with SW, CO and possibly UT or TX
- Merge with CA, Northwest, HI and possibly SW
- Merge it with UT, CO and BS, and possibly AK

California

- Merge it with NW and HI
- Merge it with NW, HI, NV and possibly SW
- Merge it with NV, SW, CO and possibly TX or UT

I don't make AK or HI because they are pretty simple to place : either merged togehter, or with CA and NW, or with BS (for AK).

[Antonio the Sixth]

If you're ready to waste a few time, try to rank for each State the different possibilities beginning by those that make more sense. When I say "possibly" or "with or without", try to make your choice too.

[Devilman88]

This is what I would do:



Pink: New England
Red: Upper East Coast
Dark Lower East- Coast
Dark Blue: Rust Belt
Middle shade Blue: Boarder States
Light shade blue: Southern States
Light green: Mid-West
Lime: Plains
Green: Rocky states
Dark Green: NW States
Yellowish: SW States

[Devilman88]

AK is in the NW group*

[muon2]

Ok, there are several very interesting things there.

(snip)

To Muon, I almost agree with your demographic map, but I'd rather put MN in the Great Lakes, WV in the Delta South and NV in the Southwest. I think I'm gonna edit my spreadsheet using those regions.

The key feature of my map was to take in growth patterns as a primary demographic, but consider the factors as well. Politics is not such a strong factor in my estimation.

The growth patterns and demographic trends in MN are a better match to MO than to IL. The age of the urban and suburban bands around Mpls better match KC than Chicago or Detroit. As Snowguy notes, western MN fits well with ND, and I'd add that SW MN is a good fit to SD.
It's only at the political level that MN goes in with the Great Lakes as the Twin Cities and Duluth votes more like WI than other states in the Great Plains.

Southern WV might well fit the demographic trends of KY and TN, but the population centers in the northern part of the state match well with western PA and NY in overall trends. Again I wouldn't let the statewide political trends mask the underlying demographics.

NV is a tough one. Though Las Vegas has a Hispanic influence like the Southwest, it's really at a much lower level than AZ or NM. Denver is a better match for Las Vegas in many ways. Outside of Las Vegas and Reno, the Mormon population pattern mirrors UT and ID to a great extent.

Demographics can shed light on politics, but it can also stand on its own. That's what I've tried to reflect in my map.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I certainly have a far lower knowledge of demographic data than you, so I am almost certainly right. I just noted that MN had a populaton growth pretty similar to Wisconsin, while IA, Mo and Plain States have seem a far higher Population erosion. As for Nevada, it's high population growth makes me think to Arizona, but it's true that the same is worth for CO and UT. Hence my reluctance to separate the "central West" (CO, UT, NV) from the southeast (AZ, NM, CA). Anywyas, we agree for most of the map, that's the most important.


Anyways, getting back to political regions, I've been trying to make some progress with our initial map, and came to a few conclusions. By doing so, I've reduced the number of pre-regions from 13 to 11 and the number of unallocated states from 15 to 8. Here is the result :



A few explanations :
- Alaska and Hawaii go to west coast and Big sky respectively, seems the most coherent solution to me.
- Northern NE is interesting in many ways, but making a region with only 3 States doesn't seem a good idea to me
- I've merged NY and NJ (which sense would it make otherwise ?). At this point, the only viable solution to make it a true region was to add MD and DE.
- Non-contiguous regions really bother me, so to avoid this scenatio I've merged EDS with SEC.
- I opted for two separate regions in the "new West", so to make the region viable I had to give it NV and CO.
- For the same reason, CA is incoroprated to the OR-WA region.

I'm somewhat desappointed, Devilman, because you were the only one answering me and I eventually came against almost all of your proposals. I'm obviously always open to discussion, but I also reflected a lot to that and I personally prefer these solutions.

Now, this map will highlight the possibilities for the remaining State. I admit for some States the result is pretty ugly, but I didn't know what else I could have dome besides stripes :



To put it more clearly, here are for each State the region it could be merged with :

- Pennsylvania Mid-Atlantic, Rust Belt
- Michigan Rust Belt, Midwest
- Tennessee Appalachia, Deep South
- Arkansas Appalachia, Deep South
- Missouri Appalachia, Midwest
- Oklahoma Deep South, Appalachia, Plains
- Texas Deep south, Plains, Southwest
- Utah Big Sky, Southwest

Also, an other thing : white lines mean that two regions might be merged together. Obviously all these choices are interdependent (for example it would make poor sense to give PA to Rust Belt if you merge it with midwest).

Now, tell me what would your choices be.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Think you need to check where the Mississippi river be before you put Arkansas into a region named after the Appalachians...

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

Part of the problem with using entire states for this project is that some states clearly cross regional boundaries. For instance, eastern Texas clearly belongs in the South, but western Texas would be a much better fit in the Southwest.

If I were forced to use whole states, I would put Michigan in the Rust Belt; Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Texas in the Deep South; Tennessee in Appalachia; Missouri in the Midwest; and Utah in Big Sky. Pennsylvania would be a coin toss, however; with a center of population in the middle of the state it could arguably go either way.

[k-onmmunist]

Teal - South
Pink - New England
Green - North
Blue - Midwest
Red - West

[Antonio the Sixth]

Think you need to check where the Mississippi river be before you put Arkansas into a region named after the Appalachians...

Oh, please...

1. The region name is the name of the region without other States merged. Appalachia=WV+KY.
2. The final region name will be determined once the regions themselves are determined.
3. Why do you care so much about region names ?
4. Since you saw this thread, what about making an useful contribution, by - I don't know... - posting a map or saying where you would put each State ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, it seems that this had made no progresses, so here is what my plan for last States. The choice to put one State in a particular region should be determined by several criteria. Let's list the few we can identify :
- I plan to make a measure the degree of electoral similarity between the States and each region, based on a handful of particularly representative Presidential elections. We will be able to see which region is more electorally "similar" to a particular state.
- Each region will be comprised of at least 4 States, and a maximum of, say 10. Area and population constraints should also be studied.
- I will open a poll for each state, asking you in which region you would put it. This will help me to take better your opinions into account, provided that enough people vote.
- Finally, I won't forget the general coherence of the final map, so it's important to think at the consequence for a region to put a state into another region.

So, what do you think about that ?

[Hash]

It would be easier if state lines could be altered...

I had begun work on this as part of my 'US with French parties' (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=99553.0) scenario in the goal of creating administrative regions like France's administrative regions. But it's much harder with only 50 states (instead of 100 departments) and a lot of overlapping regions. Furthermore, America's lack of a long history like Europe means that there are no/few historical fiefdoms with unique cultures like Alsace, Bretagne, Corsica, Normandie etc.

If these are for administrative purposes, Hawaii and Alaska, like Martinique and Guadeloupe, would likely be state-regions for rather obvious administrative regions. As in Normandie, there could be a reunificationist movement between NC + SC and maybe between VA + WV.

Oklahoma, Arkansas, Missouri, Nevada are quite hard and I don't like to place Florida with the Deep South. A AZ-NM-TX region makes some sense demographically, but it's hard to see if it would have been created by the government gnomes in the 60s (assuming these US regions were made when France made its regions)

It'd be much more fun to take a county map and split states to create better, smaller regions

[opebo]

How can you create maps with all those colors?

[King]

In order to adequately divide the west into regions, you'll have to split up Texas and California.

The panhandle (Amarillo) is midwestern.  West Texas (El Paso/Lubbock/San Antonio, West of Austin) are southwestern.  East Texas (Dallas/Houston) are pure Southern.

Southern California from the northern borders of San Luis Obispo/Kern/San Bernadino counties southward is Southwestern.  North of that line is adequately Pacific Northwest or more Nevada/Utah-esque western.

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would be easier if state lines could be altered...

Yeah, you're right, and that's why it was so easy for me to create regions in my "alternate US States" project with TX and CA both split in three States. Of course, those difficulties also make the thread more interesting, since more combinations are possible.

How can you create maps with all those colors?

Oh, that's quite simple. I used to think the Atlas maps have only the 4 colors that are presented in the EVCalc, but in realit there are 2 more : yellow and orange. To put it on your map, you have to use the map code.

For example, you have SS=x;y;z (S being a State's initials, x, y and z three numbers). The first number (x) represents the color. 0 represents grey (tie), 1=red (dem), 2=blue (rep), 3=green (ind), and then there are the two "hidden colors" 4 (yellow) and 5, which gives you orange when popular vote percentage are activated and white when they are not.

Example :

I've made MN yellow replacing MN=2;10;5 by MN=4;10;5, and NY white by replacing NY=2;31;6 by NY=5;31;6.

[bullmoose88]

You'd have to (or *should*) break pennsylvania up to make these regions correct...probably NY too.

[opebo]

...To put it on your map, you have to use the map code.

For example, you have SS=x;y;z (S being a State's initials, x, y and z three numbers). The first number (x) represents the color. 0 represents grey (tie), 1=red (dem), 2=blue (rep), 3=green (ind), and then there are the two "hidden colors" 4 (yellow) and 5, which gives you orange when popular vote percentage are activated and white when they are not.

You seriously type all that stuff?  I could never stand to do that in a million years.

[Antonio the Sixth]

...To put it on your map, you have to use the map code.

For example, you have SS=x;y;z (S being a State's initials, x, y and z three numbers). The first number (x) represents the color. 0 represents grey (tie), 1=red (dem), 2=blue (rep), 3=green (ind), and then there are the two "hidden colors" 4 (yellow) and 5, which gives you orange when popular vote percentage are activated and white when they are not.

You seriously type all that stuff?  I could never stand to do that in a million years.

You don't have that much to type. There's a number written, which you have to replace with another number : not that complicated.