Fifty states with equal population

[Mr. Morden]

What do you think of this map?

http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/

[traininthedistance]

Saw it.  Would like a more close-up view of the major metro areas, some of the states are invisible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I just can't believe I'm working on almost an identical project right now.

Anyway, great job! Very interesting map.

[Miles]

I was wondering when this would be posted

[badgate]

I liked the Trinity state for the DFW urban triangle

[memphis]

I would have preferred if the creator had not split the Lower Mississippi, but split two ways is a massive improvment over reality where it is split between LA, MS, AR, TN, KY, and MO, all of whom want access but shun the regions nearby. The Delta has very little in common with the Ozarks. Still, not a bad job overall. Throwing Hawaii in with Portland is strange also. I would think it would fit better with majority minority and sunny SoCal. Who wants to do the 2012 election based off this map? Just eyeballing it, heavily GOP areas: Allegheny, Scioto, Mammoth, Shenanadoah, Blue Ridge, Columbia, Canaveral, Tampa Bay, King, Atchafalaya, Ozark, Menominee, Nodaway, Muskogee, Big Thicket, Houston, Phoenix, Salt Lake, Ogalala.

[muon2]

I think the near equality obscures some better groupings. I would take a range from 1% of the national population up to 5% for each of the 50 states.

[Benj]

Partisanship estimates:

Rainier: Safe D
Shasta: Safe D (includes Hawaii)
Mendocino: Likely D
Yerba Buena: Safe D
Tule: Lean D (pretty certain this voted for Obama in 2012 by 3-4 points)
Los Angeles: Safe D
Temecula: Safe D (includes a bunch of LA County)
Orange: Toss-up (voted for Obama in 2012)
Phoenix: Likely R
Shiprock: Toss-up (no idea on this really; I think it voted for Obama in 2012, but it's very hard to guess properly since it contains a bunch of super-R rural areas and some very Democratic cities)
Salt Lake: Safe R
Ogalalla: Likely R (pretty sure all the additional rural areas outweigh Denver, but the vast majority of the population is in former Colorado)
Chinati: Likely D (Bush won it both times, I think, but that was anomalous and it's hard to see another Republican winning it)
Houston: Safe R
Big Thicket: Safe R
Trinity: Safe R
Muskogee: Safe R
Nodaway: Likely R
Mesabi: Lean D (basically the same as Minnesota)
Menominee: Lean D (I think, but hard to tell as the Michigan portions are fairly R)
Sangamon: Lean R (Obama won this in 2008, no question, but equally unquestionable is that it flipped to Romney in 2012--the only 2008-2012 switcher so far)
Ozark: Safe R
Atchafalaya: Safe R
King: Safe R
Mammoth: Safe R
Maumee: Safe R
Gary:  Lean D (Pretty certain Obama won this in 2012--Wisconsin is the most Democratic portion at around 54% Obama, though)
Chicago: Safe D
Detroit: Safe D
Firelands: Likely D (could probably call this safe D despite being only about 55% Obama)
Scioto: Safe R (poor Columbus)
Blue Ridge: Safe R (awkward shape!)
Columbia: Safe R
Atlanta: Likely R? (estimating partisanship on this seat is a nightmare)
Canaveral: Safe R (including Orlando in here is a huge gift to the Republicans)
Tampa Bay: Likely R (eh, safe enough, like Firelands)
Miami: Safe D
Tidewater: Lean R (might have voted for Obama in either 2008 or 2012, but I don't think so)
Shenandoah: Likely R (long-term Democratic trend, though, despite containing parts of coal country)
Allegheny: Likely R (does contain some very Democratic areas, though, and very ancestrally Democratic--Lean R might be more appropriate)
Washington: Safe D
Susquehanna: Lean D (I think? Does take some hard-R areas in PA, though. Hard to tell how the split around DC works, too)
Philadelphia: Safe D
Pocono: Toss-up? (Probably voted for Obama in 2008 at the least, but I'm not certain, and the border in NJ is very hard to see; Lean R might be more accurate)
Adirondack: Safe D (portion in NYS was about 54% Obama, then add Vermont...)
Newark: Safe D
New York: Safe D
Throgs Neck: Safe D (contains the Bronx, I assume, given the name and that that would make the rest of NYC about right for population)
Willimantic: Safe D
Casco: Safe D


So...

Safe D: 15
Likely D: 3
Lean D: 5
Toss-up: 3
Lean R: 2
Likely R: 7
Safe R: 15

Assuming I'm correct in my estimations, that's a pretty fair map, surprisingly.

[jimrtex]

I think the near equality obscures some better groupings. I would take a range from 1% of the national population up to 5% for each of the 50 states.

Surprisingly hard, since most of the natural unitary states had a small surplus.  I kept ending up with 49.5 states.  Texas could have 4 states created from it, but this would mess up distribution of a deficit from the surrounding states.

Splits (1/1000 of ideal state population, or 6,184)
NE:
NY 380, ME 216, NH 214, VT 102, MA 74
MA 987
CT 587, NY 237, RI 171
NY 987
NY 987
NY 549, NJ 437
NJ 987

SA:
MD 836, 146
VA 883, MD 100
NC 565, VA 418
NC 982

DS:
SC 751, GA 283
GA 1034
AL 777, GA 257

OI
OH 974
OH 897, IN 77
IN 974

UM
MI 970
MI 633, WI 336
WI 585, IA 384
MN 860, IA 110

GT
LA 736, TX 246
TX 982
TX 982
TX 982
TX 892, OK 90
OK 518, KS 463

SW
UT 448, NV 438, CO 132
CO 684, NM 334

NW
WA 1026
OR 622, HI 221, AK 117, WA 66

[Miles]

Nate Cohn crunched the numbers for this map.

This setup would more more advantageous for the Republicans, much for the same reason they currently control the House: the urban areas act as Democratic sinks.

Cohn concludes that Romney would have narrowly won despite losing the popular vote by 4 points.

[King]

Fine, but I think Texas is a better name for a state than Big Thicket.

Really, this would be a good way to fix the Senate.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I have been trying to do something similar, but I would also like to include DC and the territories in the new 50 states.  All 50 states in my map would have between 80% and 120% of 1/50 of the country's total population, and would be ideally centered around a big city (one state around NYC, another one around LA, another one around Chicago etc.)

If anyone wants to try that, I would appreciate it

[muon2]

I have been trying to do something similar, but I would also like to include DC and the territories in the new 50 states.  All 50 states in my map would have between 80% and 120% of 1/50 of the country's total population, and would be ideally centered around a big city (one state around NYC, another one around LA, another one around Chicago etc.)

If anyone wants to try that, I would appreciate it

The problem with the big cities is that they are too big for the range you would like. NYC alone is larger than 120% of 1/50 of the US and that doesn't include any of the NYC metro. On the Pacifica thread you can see that the greater LA area would be enough for about 3 states using those limits. That's why I suggested a range of 1% to 5% of the US population. It would keep more of the large metros together.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Nate Cohn crunched the numbers for this map.

This setup would more more advantageous for the Republicans, much for the same reason they currently control the House: the urban areas act as Democratic sinks.

Cohn concludes that Romney would have narrowly won despite losing the popular vote by 4 points.

Yeah, it's actually quite scary when you think about it. Obama sweeps all the metropolitan States of the Northeast, Lakes, SoFL and the West Coast... and loses literally everything else. Regardless of your partisan affiliation, this is really a sad reflection on the extent of America's political divide.

[justfollowingtheelections]

I have been trying to do something similar, but I would also like to include DC and the territories in the new 50 states.  All 50 states in my map would have between 80% and 120% of 1/50 of the country's total population, and would be ideally centered around a big city (one state around NYC, another one around LA, another one around Chicago etc.)

If anyone wants to try that, I would appreciate it

The problem with the big cities is that they are too big for the range you would like. NYC alone is larger than 120% of 1/50 of the US and that doesn't include any of the NYC metro. On the Pacifica thread you can see that the greater LA area would be enough for about 3 states using those limits. That's why I suggested a range of 1% to 5% of the US population. It would keep more of the large metros together.

Can you make 50 states of an approximately equal population (DC and territories included) with that tool you use to create congressional districts?  I would like to see that.

[Miles]

I have been trying to do something similar, but I would also like to include DC and the territories in the new 50 states.  All 50 states in my map would have between 80% and 120% of 1/50 of the country's total population, and would be ideally centered around a big city (one state around NYC, another one around LA, another one around Chicago etc.)

If anyone wants to try that, I would appreciate it

The problem with the big cities is that they are too big for the range you would like. NYC alone is larger than 120% of 1/50 of the US and that doesn't include any of the NYC metro. On the Pacifica thread you can see that the greater LA area would be enough for about 3 states using those limits. That's why I suggested a range of 1% to 5% of the US population. It would keep more of the large metros together.

Can you make 50 states of an approximately equal population (DC and territories included) with that tool you use to create congressional districts?  I would like to see that.

Kinda, but its hard. Some posters on DKE have done some diaries experimenting with trans-state districts though. This is the first example I thought of.

[JerryArkansas]

I have wanted to do a cross distict map with arkansas and mississippi

[jimrtex]

I have wanted to do a cross distict map with arkansas and mississippi

This apportionment would ensure that congressional districts could be within 7% x sqrt(N) of the idea district population (with a limit of 5% for a single-district state.

Alabama 3.5% under ideal.
Mississippi 4.8% over ideal.
Alabama-Mississippi 0.5% over ideal.

Alaska 1.5% over ideal.

Arizona 0.2% over ideal.

Arkansas 2.9% over ideal.

California 0.9% under ideal.

Florida 1.7% under ideal.
Georgia 2.2% under ideal.
Florida-Georgia 0.7% over ideal, and collective loss of one seat.

Hawaii 3.9% under ideal.

Illinois 0.6% over ideal.

Indiana 1.6% over ideal.

Iowa 7.4% over ideal.
Nebraska 14.1% under ideal.
Iowa-Nebraska 1.8% under ideal.

Kansas 0.7% over ideal.

Kentucky 2.0% over ideal.

Maryland 1.8% over ideal.

Massachusetts 2.5% over ideal.
Connecticut 0.8% over ideal (is in range, but population needed to prop up Rhode Island).
Rhode Island 25.8% under ideal.
Massachusetts-Connecticut-Rhode Island 1.5% under ideal.

Michigan 0.4% under ideal.

Minnesota 6.5% under ideal.
Montana 39.9% over ideal.
North Dakota -4.9% under ideal.
Minnesota-Montana-North Dakota 1.7% under ideal.

Missouri 5.7% over ideal.
Oklahoma 5.9% over ideal.
Missouri-Oklahoma 1.8% under ideal, and collective gain of one seat.

Nevada 4.7% under ideal.
Idaho 10.7% over ideal.
Nevada-Idaho 0.4% over ideal.

New Mexico 3.0% under ideal.

New York 1.2% over ideal (would be OK by self).
New Jersey 3.3% over ideal.
Maine 6.2% under ideal.
New Hampshire 7.1% under ideal.
Vermont 11.3% under ideal.
New York-New Jersey-Maine-New Hampshire-Vermont 0.8% over ideal.

North Carolina 3.5% over ideal.
South Carolina 6.6% under ideal.
North Carolina-South Carolina 0.00% under ideal.

Ohio 1.7% over ideal.

Pennsylvania 0.5% under ideal (OK by self, but need to take some of Delaware excess).
Delaware 26.7% over ideal.
Pennsylvania-Delaware 1.0% over ideal.

South Dakota 15.3% over ideal.
Wyoming 20.0% over ideal.
South Dakota-Wyoming 2.4% under ideal.

Tennessee 0.3% under ideal.

Texas 1.2% under ideal.
Louisiana 6.8% over ideal.
Texas-Louisiana 0.1% under ideal.

Utah 2.6% under ideal.

Virginia 2.8% over ideal.
West Virginia 12.8% under ideal.
Virginia-West Virginia 0.5% under ideal.

Washington 5.0% under ideal.
Oregon 8.3% over ideal.
Washington-Oregon 0.6% under ideal.

[Skill and Chance]

What if you did 8 roughly CA-sized  states?  If a population as large as CA can be successfully (yes, I know the "successful" part is in doubt in CA right now) administered as a single state government, that could cut down pretty dramatically on costs.  I guess it would look something like this:

State 1-California: CA (53 CDs, 55 EV)
State 2-Houston: TX+OK+AR+LA (51 CDs, 53 EV)
State 3-Sacagawea: AK+HI+WA+OR+ID+WY+NV+UT+CO+AZ+NM+MT+ND+SD+NE (54 CDs, 56 EV)
State 4-Lincoln: MN+IA+MO+KS+IL+WI (50 CDs, 52 EV)
State 5-Carnegie: IN+MI+OH+PA (57 CDs, 59 EV)
State 6-Gulf: FL+GA+AL+MS (52 CDs, 54 EV)
State 7-Jefferson: SC+NC+VA+WV+TN+KY+MD+DE+DC (52 CDs, 54 EV)
State 8-Roosevelt: NY+NJ+New England (60 CDs, 62 EV)

Capitals: Sacramento, Houston, Denver, Chicago, Pittsburgh, Tallahassee, Richmond, Albany

California: Safe D
Houston: Safe R
Sacagawea: Tossup?
Lincoln: Likely D
Carnegie: Tossup
Gulf: Safe R
Jefferson: Likely R?
Roosevelt: Safe D

It actually results in a surprisingly fair map.  A close election would be D 169, R 160, 175 Toss Up with 223 EV needed to win.  Thoughts?   

[Antonio the Sixth]

Having a small number of States would make the Electoral College even more distorting of popular vote. Also, local government makes little sense when the subnational entities are so big already.

[Skill and Chance]

How about just chopping CA in 4, TX in 3, and NY and FL into 2 states of equal population +/- 1 CD and leaving the other 46 states as they are?  We would be adding 7 new NJ to GA-sized states.  The large population Midwest states would be left alone because they are all losing EV over the long term anyway.  You would have:

CA

1. North California (beyond safe D)
2. East California- includes Central Valley (lean R)
3. Greater Los Angeles (safe D)
4. South California-San Diego and border counties (lean D)

TX

1. West Texas-including Dallas (safe R)
2. South Texas- including San Antonio, El Paso, and Austin (likely D)
3. East Texas- including Houston (safe R)

FL

1. North Florida (safe R)
2. South Florida (lean to likely D)
*not sure where Tampa and Orlando go here*

NY

1. Greater New York City (beyond safe D)
2. Upstate New York (tossup to lean D depending on the cutoff line)

This would probably help R's on balance in the electoral college and D's in the senate and maybe the house (because they would probably get to gerrymander South Texas, South Florida and Greater NYC).

[Antonio the Sixth]

This sound like a much better idea, yeah.

[traininthedistance]

FL

1. North Florida (safe R)
2. South Florida (lean to likely D)
*not sure where Tampa and Orlando go here*

NY

1. Greater New York City (beyond safe D)
2. Upstate New York (tossup to lean D depending on the cutoff line)

This would probably help R's on balance in the electoral college and D's in the senate and maybe the house (because they would probably get to gerrymander South Texas, South Florida and Greater NYC).

The Tampa area would be split, Orlando would be in North FL.

As for NY, the cutoff line is basically just the Harlem River.  The Bronx would go in Upstate.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here's my take at NY...






...and Florida.






I think preserving constituencies that make sense is more important than perfect population equality.

[Skill and Chance]

Here's my take at NY...






...and Florida.






I think preserving constituencies that make sense is more important than perfect population equality.

Do you know how D your Upper NY is?  That South FL has significantly more than half the state population and is probably only D+2-3, right?