3 electoral votes for ever
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 11:01:55 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  3 electoral votes for ever
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Which state(s) will not get allocated more than 3 electoral votes in the next 50 years?
#1
Alaska
#2
Delaware
#3
Montana
#4
North Dakota
#5
South Dakota
#6
Vermont
#7
Wyoming
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results


Author Topic: 3 electoral votes for ever  (Read 2619 times)
Duke David
Atheist2006
Rookie
**
Posts: 240
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 28, 2011, 01:42:11 PM »

... and why?
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 28, 2011, 01:46:28 PM »

I chose everything except Delaware and South Dakota. I wrongly voted for Montana.

To have the chance for faster-than-average growth to make it into the next group, you need to not be towards the bottom of the list now (Wyoming, Vermont) and need to have at least a mid-sized urban area that could conceivably expand (ruling out North Dakota, Vermont again.) Alaska has a big city but it's constrained by geography and climate.

Montana is eligible because it's on the knife-edge now and it's possible for moderate growth to do it. 

Delaware is in the path of suburbanization and increased density and has that low tax regime so it's possible.

South Dakota has population growth and a viable metro area that is growing.
Logged
Thomas D
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,042
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.84, S: -6.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 28, 2011, 07:52:19 PM »

Based on having no information whatsoever, I'm saying Alaska because no one ever moves there.
Logged
Jackson
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 568
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 28, 2011, 08:04:59 PM »

You do know that Alaska has nearly a million people living in it, right?
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 29, 2011, 02:15:33 AM »

You do know that Alaska has nearly a million people living in it, right?

They're still about 300,000 shy of the million mark actually.  At their current growth rate it will still take them another 25-30 years to hit 1 million.  I suppose that still puts them within the 50 year parameter of this poll but I think it may be a bit premature to say that Alaskans number "nearly a million."

North Dakota, Wyoming, and Vermont are the three I think have the greatest chance to remain at 3 EVs for the foreseeable future.  The others all have a somewhat reasonable shot at hitting 4 EVS.

As a historical aside, ND lost its 4th EV after the 1970 census, SD after 1980, and MT after 1990 so it would be kinda interesting to see them rebound.  As for the other states, Vermont had at least 4 EVs up until the early 20th Century and Delaware had 4 EVs once for a single decade after the 1810 census.  Alaska and Wyoming have always had the minimum.

As a second aside on apportionment in general, I think the wide population disparity between our 3 EV states should be sufficient proof that we need more representatives.  I think Congress should strive for a nationwide 1:500,000 representative to resident ratio after each census.  That would give us about 600 members of the House based on the current population.
Logged
Duke David
Atheist2006
Rookie
**
Posts: 240
Germany


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 29, 2011, 05:42:52 PM »


Why does everybody think that North Dakota will be stuck, whereas some of these people give South Dakota the chance of growing?
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,952
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 29, 2011, 05:48:30 PM »


Why does everybody think that North Dakota will be stuck, whereas some of these people give South Dakota the chance of growing?

South Dakota has both a higher current population and a faster growth rate than North Dakota.
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,933


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 29, 2011, 06:08:03 PM »


Why does everybody think that North Dakota will be stuck, whereas some of these people give South Dakota the chance of growing?

South Dakota has both a higher current population and a faster growth rate than North Dakota.

Also, resource extraction and agriculture doesn't drive high volume population growth.
Logged
lowtech redneck
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 273
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 29, 2011, 07:37:25 PM »

I think any state with oil and gas has growth potential, and Delaware is too close to major metropolitan areas; I picked Vermont, whose greatest growth potential probably lies with retired and/or independently wealthy liberals seeking a small-town lifestyle.
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 30, 2011, 10:40:20 AM »

I think any state with oil and gas has growth potential, and Delaware is too close to major metropolitan areas; I picked Vermont, whose greatest growth potential probably lies with retired and/or independently wealthy liberals seeking a small-town lifestyle.

Generally proximity to a major metro area is a great predictor of future growth.  Most of the population is in the north and is part of the Philadelphia metro area. 
Logged
memphis
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,959


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 31, 2011, 11:09:03 PM »

North Dakota is having an oil boom right now and has much lower unemployment than the rest of the nation. Might surprise.a few people.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« 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 0.031 seconds with 14 queries.