Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 09:25:32 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)
  Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]
Author Topic: Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses  (Read 13886 times)
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #50 on: September 29, 2014, 05:02:08 PM »

Wyoming

No map found.

HD  1   REP   -40
HD  2   REP   -34
HD  3   REP   -41
HD  4   REP   -25
HD  5   REP   -25
HD  6   REP   -35
HD  7   REP   -23
HD  8   REP   -11
HD  9   REP   -13
HD 10   REP   -30
HD 11   DEM   -6
HD 12   DEM   -9
HD 13   DEM   4
HD 14   REP   -8
HD 15   REP   -10
HD 16   REP   13
HD 17   REP   -17
HD 18   REP   -32
HD 19   REP   -35
HD 20   REP   -34
HD 21   REP   -45
HD 22   REP   -16
HD 23   REP   -2
HD 24   REP   -29
HD 25   REP   -29
HD 26   REP   -35
HD 27   REP   -32
HD 28   REP   -33
HD 29   REP   -22
HD 30   REP   -27
HD 31   REP   -40
HD 32   REP   -37
HD 33   DEM   5
HD 34   REP   -35
HD 35   REP   -29
HD 36   REP   -19
HD 37   REP   -26
HD 38   REP   -29
HD 39   DEM   -22
HD 40   REP   -34
HD 41   DEM   -9
HD 42   REP   -21
HD 43   REP   -12
HD 44   DEM   2
HD 45   REP   2
HD 46   REP   -9
HD 47   REP   -30
HD 48   REP   -21
HD 49   REP   -29
HD 50   REP   -35
HD 51   REP   -27
HD 52   REP   -41
HD 53   REP   -35
HD 54   REP   -14
HD 55   REP   -26
HD 56   REP   -16
HD 57   REP   -18
HD 58   REP   -28
HD 59   REP   -16
HD 60   DEM   -21




HD 16   REP   13
HD 33   DEM   5
HD 13   DEM   4
HD 44   DEM   2
HD 45   REP   2
HD 23   REP   -2
HD 11   DEM   -6
HD 14   REP   -8
HD 12   DEM   -9
HD 41   DEM   -9
HD 46   REP   -9
HD 15   REP   -10
HD  8   REP   -11
HD 43   REP   -12
HD  9   REP   -13
HD 54   REP   -14
HD 22   REP   -16
HD 56   REP   -16
HD 59   REP   -16
HD 17   REP   -17
HD 57   REP   -18
HD 36   REP   -19
HD 42   REP   -21
HD 48   REP   -21
HD 60   DEM   -21
HD 29   REP   -22
HD 39   DEM   -22
HD  7   REP   -23
HD  4   REP   -25
HD 5   REP   -25
HD 37   REP   -26
HD 55   REP   -26
HD 30   REP   -27
HD 51   REP   -27
HD 58   REP   -28
HD 24   REP   -29
HD 25   REP   -29
HD 35   REP   -29
HD 38   REP   -29
HD 49   REP   -29
HD 10   REP   -30
HD 47   REP   -30
HD 18   REP   -32
HD 27   REP   -32
HD 28   REP   -33
HD  2   REP   -34
HD 20   REP   -34
HD 40   REP   -34
HD  6   REP   -35
HD 19   REP   -35
HD 26   REP   -35
HD 34   REP   -35
HD 50   REP   -35
HD 53   REP   -35
HD 32   REP   -37
HD  1   REP   -40
HD 31   REP   -40
HD  3   REP   -41
HD 52   REP   -41
HD 21   REP   -45


WY is just a heavily republican state, but strangely, the local WY republican party is relatively social liberal. Wyoming never passed a constitutional amendment banning same sex marriage for example.

Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #51 on: September 29, 2014, 05:02:50 PM »

Well,

If you have any request, I'm available.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #52 on: September 29, 2014, 05:53:47 PM »

Great job as usual, Windjammer.

I was looking at the most Democratic HDs in Republican states (and visa versa) and found this:

West Virginia




HD 37   20
HD 67   2
HD 61   0
HD 65   -1

The bold must be a typo (esp. after looking at the map), and I also don't see districts over 60 on the map.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #53 on: September 29, 2014, 05:57:04 PM »

Great job as usual, Windjammer.

I was looking at the most Democratic HDs in Republican states (and visa versa) and found this:

West Virginia




HD 37   20
HD 67   2
HD 61   0
HD 65   -1

The bold must be a typo (esp. after looking at the map), and I also don't see districts over 60 on the map.

Thank you nclib.
Indeed haha, I think there is a problem! Thanks for having pointed out that. I will fix that tomorrow or during the week.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #54 on: September 29, 2014, 06:58:30 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 09:11:16 AM by muon2 »


Well , I’m happy to finally introduce the  Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses. Like the Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Senates, a D+1 district means that if the presidential  democrat candidate gets 50%, in this house district, he would get 51%.

For those who like mathematics:
PVI in the House District n:  [(Obama2012 score- Romney2012 score)/2 -1.95 +(Obama2008score-Mccain2008score)/2-3.6]/2

Here we go!

Great work, but the math is a little off. You didn't divide to get the two party vote, which makes the gap smaller than it would be with the correct weighting. Using differences, the formula is

PVI(D+) = 50%*[(D2012-R2012)/2*(D2012+R2012) - 0.0197 + (D2008-R2008)/2*(D2008+R2008) - 0.0369]
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #55 on: September 29, 2014, 07:26:07 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 09:12:06 AM by muon2 »


Well , I’m happy to finally introduce the  Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses. Like the Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Senates, a D+1 district means that if the presidential  democrat candidate gets 50%, in this house district, he would get 51%.

For those who like mathematics:
PVI in the House District n:  [(Obama2012 score- Romney2012 score)/2 -1.95 +(Obama2008score-Mccain2008score)/2-3.6]/2

Here we go!

Great work, but the math is a little off. You didn't divide to get the two party vote, which makes the gap smaller than it would be with the correct weighting. Using differences, the formula is

PVI(D+) = 50%*[(D2012-R2012)/2*(D2012+R2012) - 0.0197 + (D2008-R2008)/2*(D2008+R2008) - 0.0369]

Thanks for pointing out.
Well, I understand the formula. I guess the problem with my formula is that it doesn't take into account third parties? Does that change a lot of things in the end considering third parties in the US<3%?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #56 on: September 30, 2014, 09:45:13 AM »


Well , I’m happy to finally introduce the  Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses. Like the Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Senates, a D+1 district means that if the presidential  democrat candidate gets 50%, in this house district, he would get 51%.

For those who like mathematics:
PVI in the House District n:  [(Obama2012 score- Romney2012 score)/2 -1.95 +(Obama2008score-Mccain2008score)/2-3.6]/2

Here we go!

Great work, but the math is a little off. You didn't divide to get the two party vote, which makes the gap smaller than it would be with the correct weighting. Using differences, the formula is

PVI(D+) = 50%*[(D2012-R2012)/2*(D2012+R2012) - 0.0197 + (D2008-R2008)/2*(D2008+R2008) - 0.0369]

Thanks for pointing out.
Well, I understand the formula. I guess the problem with my formula is that it doesn't take into account third parties? Does that change a lot of things in the end considering third parties in the US<3%?

It would typically change the results by 0.1 or 0.2. BTW I corrected my formula, since I forgot the extra factor of two due to the fact you used the difference between the two major candidates instead of the share of the two-party vote.

However, I was looking at your IL results, and some districts seemed a bit off so I dug into the data for one district to check. I have all the PVIs for the new 2012 districts calculated with the 04-08 numbers, which were derived when the new maps were announced. Yours were a bit different, so I thought I should crosscheck one district with 08-12 numbers to confirm the discrepancy.

You list IL HD49 as PVI -1, and my 2004-2008 PVI of that district with the new boundaries was PVI -3.1. The 2012 result in that district was Obama 22.0K - Romney 23.5K or a difference of -3.3% which if I divide by 2 and subtract 1.97% gives a 2012 factor of D-3.6. Using the 2012 precincts for the new district (which has almost nothing in common with the old HD49) the 2008 vote in HD49 was Obama 23.7K - McCain 20.0K or a difference of +8.5% which gives a 2008 factor of D+0.5. When I average these two I got a net PVI(D)-1.6. It's close to yours, but it would round off to D-2.

Is it just that you have a number of HDs that are slightly more Dem than mine and rounding shifts them consistently up a point or so? If you could share your details for that HD I can confirm my suspicion.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #57 on: September 30, 2014, 10:33:08 AM »


Well , I’m happy to finally introduce the  Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Houses. Like the Windjammer Partisan Voting Index for US State Senates, a D+1 district means that if the presidential  democrat candidate gets 50%, in this house district, he would get 51%.

For those who like mathematics:
PVI in the House District n:  [(Obama2012 score- Romney2012 score)/2 -1.95 +(Obama2008score-Mccain2008score)/2-3.6]/2

Here we go!

Great work, but the math is a little off. You didn't divide to get the two party vote, which makes the gap smaller than it would be with the correct weighting. Using differences, the formula is

PVI(D+) = 50%*[(D2012-R2012)/2*(D2012+R2012) - 0.0197 + (D2008-R2008)/2*(D2008+R2008) - 0.0369]

Thanks for pointing out.
Well, I understand the formula. I guess the problem with my formula is that it doesn't take into account third parties? Does that change a lot of things in the end considering third parties in the US<3%?

It would typically change the results by 0.1 or 0.2. BTW I corrected my formula, since I forgot the extra factor of two due to the fact you used the difference between the two major candidates instead of the share of the two-party vote.

However, I was looking at your IL results, and some districts seemed a bit off so I dug into the data for one district to check. I have all the PVIs for the new 2012 districts calculated with the 04-08 numbers, which were derived when the new maps were announced. Yours were a bit different, so I thought I should crosscheck one district with 08-12 numbers to confirm the discrepancy.

You list IL HD49 as PVI -1, and my 2004-2008 PVI of that district with the new boundaries was PVI -3.1. The 2012 result in that district was Obama 22.0K - Romney 23.5K or a difference of -3.3% which if I divide by 2 and subtract 1.97% gives a 2012 factor of D-3.6. Using the 2012 precincts for the new district (which has almost nothing in common with the old HD49) the 2008 vote in HD49 was Obama 23.7K - McCain 20.0K or a difference of +8.5% which gives a 2008 factor of D+0.5. When I average these two I got a net PVI(D)-1.6. It's close to yours, but it would round off to D-2.

Is it just that you have a number of HDs that are slightly more Dem than mine and rounding shifts them consistently up a point or so? If you could share your details for that HD I can confirm my suspicion.


1) By 0.1 or 0.2: do you mean for a PVI like D+3, that could be D+4 or D+2? I'm not sure to understand.

2) Of course! This time, I was really cautious with Illinois. I made the calculus on both the 2008 results and the 2012 results.

https://drive.google.com/folderview?id=0Bz_uFI8VY7xLUzlwSXBjbkJjZU0&usp=sharing
I used this database. (You have to go on the Illinois page, and then HD detail).

If I understand correctly, you used the 2004 results? I didn't use them, I just used the 2008 and 2012 results.
Ii guess the reason is because my formula doesn't take into account the thid parties (I indeed forgot to divide by the total of Dem and Rep vote).
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #58 on: September 30, 2014, 10:40:56 AM »

EDIT:

I just realized that the date I used was already using only the democratic score and the republican score= no third party, so Romneyvote+Oobamavote= 100%.

So, I guess my formula is accurate with DKE???
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #59 on: September 30, 2014, 01:17:56 PM »

Thanks, my suspicion was correct. The vote totals on your sheet are slightly different than on mine. So in the aforementioned HD49, their totals give a PVI of -1.25 and I had -1.55. As I surmised we rounded in different directions. Since they only have the two party totals the other correction I mentioned would not come into play.

In IL many precincts are split between different districts, but there is only one total for the presidential vote in that precinct. Votes from those precincts have to to split between districts based on some estimate division. My guess is that their split was different than mine.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #60 on: September 30, 2014, 01:25:12 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 10:54:48 PM by muon2 »

Thanks!

Well, muon speaking about Illinois,

The district you mention, HD49, that's not strange it seems to be relatively moderate for the PVI?
I mean, I just made some search about the current representative, and he won fairly easily in 2006 (60-40), and he wasn't even challenged in 2012. I just saw his record and he seems to be pro life, pro gun and anti civil union. That's quite conservative for a "moderate" district, so that's strange democrats didn't even compete in this district.

I guess this is because of Obama overperforming a lot in  Illinois in 2008? This district should be safely republican I guess?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #61 on: September 30, 2014, 02:00:53 PM »

Obama's 2008 performance pushed most suburban Chicago districts about 3 points more Dem in the PVI. The raw annual numbers for PVI (my values) in 04-12 were R+6.7, D+0.5, and R+3.6. The average of the first two is R+3.1 and for the second two is R+1.6. If one skips over '08 the PVI would be R+5.2. In off years the lack of D turnout runs the number in excess of R+10. 2016 will be very interesting in IL without Obama at the top of the ticket.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #62 on: September 30, 2014, 02:04:33 PM »

Thank you!

Well, I guess that will be a democratic state like Connecticut?
Logged
Joe Republic
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 40,044
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #63 on: September 30, 2014, 07:09:44 PM »
« Edited: September 30, 2014, 10:56:05 PM by muon2 »

The district you mention, HD49, that's not strange it seems to be relatively moderate for the PVI?
I mean, I just made some search about the current representative, and he won fairly easily in 2006 (60-40), and he wasn't even challenged in 2012. I just saw his record and he seems to be pro life, pro gun and anti civil union. That's quite conservative for a "moderate" district, so that's strange democrats didn't even compete in this district.

I'm sure muon2 will be very grateful for this information.
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 18,822
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.63, S: -9.49

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #64 on: September 30, 2014, 10:44:27 PM »

omg this is great
Logged
moderatevoter
ModerateVAVoter
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,381


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #65 on: September 30, 2014, 10:51:54 PM »

Windjammer, you deserve a lot of credit and praise for working on this. I'm sure it took forever.
Logged
smoltchanov
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,376
Russian Federation


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #66 on: October 01, 2014, 12:13:46 AM »

Very good job. It would be even more interesting in the summer though, because now DKE has similar tables (President by state legislative district) for 47 (if i remember correctly) states, and, naturally, there is a great overlap between data here and there. There are some minor errors (D instead of R and vice versa) in some cases. Nevertheless - a great job! For me - a sorted lists (showing where we have a "maverick representation" like those R+30 and above districts represented by Democrats in Louisiana, and D+20 districts, represented by Republicans in Vermont) are most useful. It would be interesting to add one more (ideological) dimension for such cases, because usually these mavericks have to be fairly different in their voting records from "party norm" to hold them.

Thanks!
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #67 on: October 01, 2014, 11:42:25 AM »

Well, I wasn't aware of that, but, this is hilarious hahahaha.


Thank you ModerateVAVoter.

Smoltchanov and nclib, don't worry, I will do your stuff.

If you have other requests, I'm available.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #68 on: October 01, 2014, 11:46:35 AM »


Thank you  BK Cheesy
Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3]  
« 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 0.047 seconds with 11 queries.