Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 04:45:24 PM
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)
  Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10
Author Topic: Mid-2014 county population estimates out tomorrow, March 26  (Read 28145 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #75 on: April 07, 2015, 10:32:36 AM »

The Columbus UA extends into Pickaway County? What is the definition of an urban cluster?  Anyway, when I look at the precincts, the territory along the Franklin County line, looks like it is not very densely populated at all. Only the precinct north of Commercial Point seems to have more urban like density, which precinct while large in area, has 4,700 people. Whatever. Nobody but us will be paying attention to these definitions anyway in all probability.

There are small parts of Scioto and Harrison townships in the 2010 definition of the Columbus UA that had 2696 people. The Harrison piece extends down from the Rickenbacher airport which serves as a significant cargo and general aviation business airport just north of the county line, but stops north of Ashville. The Scioto piece extends south towards but not all the way to Commercial Point. See http://www2.census.gov/geo/maps/dc10map/UAUC_RefMap/ua/ua19234_columbus_oh/DC10UA19234_002.pdf

Part of projecting the 2020 maps is trying to discern changes the Census will make to its various geographic divisions. Besides our merry band of mapmakers, I can assure you that local governments will watching, too. There are federal grants that can depend on these definitions.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #76 on: April 07, 2015, 05:25:50 PM »

Madison, Union, and Pickaway and not growing much in population, so they are not "urbanizing" at the moment.
Union is the 7th fastest growing county in the state, and presumably all the growth is occurring adjacent to Dublin and in the Columbus Urbanized Area.  If the Columbus UA were to link up with the Marysville Urban Cluster, Union would easily qualify for the UCC.

Pickaway is the 10th fastest growing county.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #77 on: April 07, 2015, 10:40:57 PM »

The Columbus UA extends into Pickaway County? What is the definition of an urban cluster?  Anyway, when I look at the precincts, the territory along the Franklin County line, looks like it is not very densely populated at all. Only the precinct north of Commercial Point seems to have more urban like density, which precinct while large in area, has 4,700 people. Whatever. Nobody but us will be paying attention to these definitions anyway in all probability.
An urban area is an area of relatively dense settlement (1000 or 500 persons per square mile or greater).   An urban area must have a population of 2500 or more with 1500 persons living outside institutional group quarters (this provision is to keep prisons from qualifying as urban areas).  Note that 2500 is the historical threshold for defining a town's population as being urban or rural.

Urban Areas are classified as urbanized areas or urban clusters based on whether they have 50,000 or more persons or not.

When the census bureau first started classifying the population as urban and rural, the urban population resided in towns and cities of 2500 or more in population.  After WWII, it was noted that increasing numbers of persons were living in unincorporated areas adjacent to cities.  Since they didn't live in the city limits, they were classified as rural.  The census bureau defined urbanized areas for cities with more than 50,000 population.  This was originally done by hand.  The population inside urbanized areas was considered urban.  Metropolitan statistical areas were based on urbanized areas.  An MSA included the counties that contained the urbanized area, and adjacent counties with strong economic links.  The original definition included the number of phone calls between the counties, but it has generally been based on commuting.

Beginning in 2000, the census bureau began defining urban areas based solely on population density, without regard to city boundaries.  This was facilitated by the use of census blocks for the entire country in 1990.  With census blocks, you can define population density on a finer basis.   To maintain consistency with past classification, urban areas were required to have a population of 2500, but don't necessarily correspond to towns.  Urban area was a new term.  The existing term of urbanized areas was redefined to be an urban area with more than 50,000 persons.  This for the most part prevented 1990s urbanized areas from losing that status, as well as triggering a loss of metropolitan status.  Urban areas with less than 50,000 persons were designated as urban clusters.

Micropolitan statistical areas were defined in a manner equivalent to metropolitan statistical areas, but are based on urban clusters with more than 10,000 persons.

Because they are defined based on population density, urbanized areas can be quite extensive, and potentially link areas that are quite distant.  For example, there could be one urbanized area stretching from Wilmington, DE to Springfield, MA; and another from Providence, RI and Worcester, MA to Portsmouth, NH.  So in 2010, the census bureau split urbanized areas near to the boundary between 1990 metropolitan areas.

Because Livingston County, MI was in the Ann Arbor metropolitan area it has an urbanized area that is separate from Detroit (South Lyon-Howell).   This UA is physically separate from the Ann Arbor UA.  So initially, Livingston County would have been identified as a central county of a MSA separate from Detroit, Ann Arbor, Flint, and Lansing.  It was captured based on commuting patterns as an outlying county of the Detroit MSA, but its urbanized area is now locked in.

Urban clusters are not protected in that way, and so urbanized areas can extend outward along highways and capture them.  The city of Delaware shows how this can happen.  The Columbus Urbanized Area sprawled across the Franklin-Delaware county line and has linked up with the dense settlement around the city of Delaware.  Marysville is not too much further from the center of Columbus than Delaware city.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #78 on: April 08, 2015, 12:29:04 AM »

The Columbus UA extends into Pickaway County? What is the definition of an urban cluster?  Anyway, when I look at the precincts, the territory along the Franklin County line, looks like it is not very densely populated at all. Only the precinct north of Commercial Point seems to have more urban like density, which precinct while large in area, has 4,700 people. Whatever. Nobody but us will be paying attention to these definitions anyway in all probability.


The Columbus UA does extend into Madison County.  But also notice the long tendril of West Jefferson which is along the old old highway (National Pike) and the old highway (US 40) about a mile south of the new highway (I-70).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #79 on: April 08, 2015, 12:36:41 AM »

Madison, Union, and Pickaway and not growing much in population, so they are not "urbanizing" at the moment.
I think that jimtex's point is that all three counties already have enough urban population to qualify, except that most of the population is in satellite urban clusters, not in the main urbanized area. It would not take a lot of growth for a tendril of Columbus to link to one of those clusters. Then at the 2020 Census the urban cluster would count as urbanized area and the county would meet the UCC criteria.
Actually, my point was that I think that coverage was most important, and I would not be concerned if 1, 2, or 3 districts all extended outside the UCC (though this would likely be impossible given the population of Franklin County.

Placing Pickaway with Franklin is really a quite minimal extension of the 2nd district outside the UCC, but I would be indifferent if it also included Ross (Chillicothe) or extended to Portsmouth.  I'd object if you had tried to include Ashland or Huntington.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #80 on: April 09, 2015, 02:36:53 PM »
« Edited: April 09, 2015, 05:18:42 PM by Torie »

Here's my mappie extrapolating out the current  census estimates to 2020.  It assumes that an effort should be make to keep the black percentage up in the OH-13 (in this map it's 41.1% BVAP). I put all of the projected population loss for Cuyahoga in OH-13. The map reveals two issues, one of which Muon2 and myself arm wrestle over. OH-03 gets docked a point because of the coverage issue for the Dayton UCC, even though the Dayton UCC population not in OH-03 has not been increased. I still dissent from that rule. The map needs to do what it did to avoid chops elsewhere, and since I don't like the rule anyway, I chose this approach. If OH-04 loses population a bit more rapidly, the coverage issue will go away.

The other issue is OH-05. It won't score well erosity-wise, but I quite like CD's that wrap around a UCC area. It's really a community of interest.  Some thought might be given for an exception for this kind of situation, maybe assuming that the inner UCC CD's just are not there for highway connection purposes. In any event, it creates the nice squarish kind of CD that I like - sort of like a square donut in this case. The map basically has 5 realistically competitive districts which is good (OH-05 might be on its way to being competitive (under a 3% Pub PVI), by 2022. It's about a 5% PVI based on the 2008 election, and probably a point below that now. In fact it might be close to even, by 2022. Meanwhile, OH-01 will probably be a 2 or 3 point Dem CD by 2022. It's 0.5% Dem PVI based on the 2008 numbers.

Hopefully Cuyahoga will lose population at a bit faster pace, so OH-14 has an excuse to impinge on Geauga County. It's certainly a butt ugly CD now.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #81 on: April 11, 2015, 09:22:58 AM »

Here's a round of projections to the states of the western Great Plains. Neither of the Dakotas will rate a second seat any time soon. However, due to the oil boom the combined population is projected to be slightly less than that of WV in 2020. The other states in this set also project to keep their same CD count.

NE has one multicounty UCC for Omaha and its two counties project to have 1.18 CDs in 2020. To keep whole counties they are split between two counties keeping the UCC cover rule, but ignoring the pack rule given the lack of projection for the county subdivisions. The districts are within 0.5% of the quota, not that I expect that to hold up given the precision of these projections. It's just that easy to get close given the large number of counties with small populations.



KS also has one multicounty UCC for KC and its two counties project to have 1.055 CDs in 2020. As in NE I'll keep the cover rule with whole counties. Again with so many small counties all the districts are within 0.5% of the quota.



OK has two multicounty UCCs, one for OKC and the other for Tulsa. The three county Tulsa UCC
is projected to have 1.006 CDs in 2020 so it is left as a single district. The three county OKC UCC is projected to have 1.57 CDs in 2020 and Oklahoma county is only about 3% over the projected quota. The remaining cover of the OKC district is left slightly under population, so that the remaining districts are all within 1% of the projected quota.



Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #82 on: April 11, 2015, 10:30:10 AM »

I don't understand why you ignored the pack rule, but whatever. You can't sever Wyandotte from Johnson County.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #83 on: April 11, 2015, 10:49:09 AM »

I don't understand why you ignored the pack rule, but whatever. You can't sever Wyandotte from Johnson County.

Using the pack rule in places like KS and NE guarantees a county chop (in fact a macrochop). The pack penalty and county chop score the same so it should come down to the question of erosity. Calculating erosity in a macrochopped county requires knowledge of the populations of the county subdivisions, since the shape of the chop affects erosity. Thus without county subdivision projections I'll take the penalty point I know versus the point I don't.

Perhaps we can revisit this in June when subdivision projections are released to match the county data. It also requires producing the muni-level maps to assess erosity, which I don't have at present.
Logged
Gass3268
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 27,478
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #84 on: April 11, 2015, 09:47:08 PM »

Growth Trends Since 2010, Relative To Each State's Growth




Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #85 on: April 12, 2015, 03:52:48 AM »

I don't understand why you ignored the pack rule, but whatever. You can't sever Wyandotte from Johnson County.
It is not needed.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 46,057
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -3.48, S: -4.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #86 on: April 16, 2015, 04:24:25 PM »

Anyone planning on cranking the NY county estimates? If NY loses a seat, and most of the population shortfall is north of Orange and Putnam Counties, I see my CD as the one of the chopping block. If fact, if one could email me the spreadsheet, that would be grand.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #87 on: April 16, 2015, 11:12:21 PM »

Anyone planning on cranking the NY county estimates? If NY loses a seat, and most of the population shortfall is north of Orange and Putnam Counties, I see my CD as the one of the chopping block. If fact, if one could email me the spreadsheet, that would be grand.

It's on my list, but it may be a few days.
Logged
JerryArkansas
jerryarkansas
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,536
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #88 on: April 17, 2015, 03:36:51 PM »

Muon, when you do get a state done, is it ok if I put it onto a national map?  I have started one up.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #89 on: April 17, 2015, 10:32:08 PM »

Muon, when you do get a state done, is it ok if I put it onto a national map?  I have started one up.

Sure, but you'll have to figure out how you want to mark multi-district areas.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #90 on: April 18, 2015, 07:30:06 AM »

Since there was a request for NY, I'll post that. NY is projected to lose one seat in 2020, but it's on the bubble and would be the next state to get a seat by my projection. So I'll look at NY with both 26 and 27 CDs.

Both plans use 2014 estimates projected to 2020. Whole counties are used and UCC covers are preserved. Districts are within 5% of the quota except in the NYC UCC where the tolerance is 20%.

This is the 26 CD plan and the following areas have multiple districts:

Suffolk 2 (1.94)
Queens 5 (4.92)
Brooklyn 4 (4.19)
Manhattan 6 (5.93)
Buffalo 2 (1.98)


This is the 27 CD plan and the following areas have multiple districts:

Suffolk 2 (2.02)
Queens 5 (5.11)
NYC 10 (9.98)
Buffalo 2 (2.00)


The extra CD allows for a Poughkeepsie district that doesn't have to dip into Westchester and can include Columbia county for Torie. Smiley
Logged
traininthedistance
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,547


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #91 on: April 18, 2015, 08:27:34 AM »
« Edited: April 18, 2015, 08:36:25 AM by traininthedistance »

Man, that 26-district NY might be less erose than the 27-district version, but I think that despite that the 27-district map is a better one, since it does a better job of keeping the North Country and Capital Region together (the Schenectady cut-out is still unfortunate though).

Also of course it doesn't matter much to separate out groups within NYC when VRA constraints will make mincemeat of most boundaries there.  

I'm curious about NJ.  Imagine there's not a whole lot of groups you can make happen; NJ just does not tend to play well with the numbers as they currently stand.  Hopefully at least you can still nest the Philly-oriented bits in approximately three districts, like is currently possible.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #92 on: April 18, 2015, 08:16:56 PM »

Man, that 26-district NY might be less erose than the 27-district version, but I think that despite that the 27-district map is a better one, since it does a better job of keeping the North Country and Capital Region together (the Schenectady cut-out is still unfortunate though).

Also of course it doesn't matter much to separate out groups within NYC when VRA constraints will make mincemeat of most boundaries there.  

I'm curious about NJ.  Imagine there's not a whole lot of groups you can make happen; NJ just does not tend to play well with the numbers as they currently stand.  Hopefully at least you can still nest the Philly-oriented bits in approximately three districts, like is currently possible.

The Capital Region will have a population too large for one district and too small for a district made up of 3 of the 4 counties in the UCC. A map will either chop a county or fail to pack a CD within the UCC. Since I don't have the county subdivision projections, I'm going with whole counties using 5% as the cutoff to avoid a macrochop.

Without drilling into census tract ACS data I'm not sure that satisfying the VRA will need to hop many county lines. Brooklyn can nest two BVAP-majority CDs within, and current ACS data seems to suggest that will still be true in 2020. Queens-Nassau can create another black CD, and that will be the extent of the VRA for blacks. There may only be one line crossing to make a Latino CD joining Brooklyn and Queens. Bronx will have one Latino CD within and maybe one joining with Manhattan.

The few counties in NJ does make it tough at the UCC level. It would be better if it followed NECTA and worked from cities, towns and boroughs.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #93 on: May 07, 2015, 07:29:11 PM »

Muon, how would you see WA's districts coming together?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #94 on: May 07, 2015, 09:03:15 PM »

Muon, how would you see WA's districts coming together?

I will see what I can do this weekend.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #95 on: May 24, 2015, 07:37:09 AM »
« Edited: May 24, 2015, 07:38:59 AM by muon2 »

The key question is WA is how much population will sit east of the Cascades. With the 2014 estimate projected out to 2020 the answer is about 110K over the population needed for 2 CDs. That's the population of Chelan+Douglas, so those counties have to attach to the west. It's also the population of Chelan+Kittitas, which is more compact to move west, but it splits the Wenatchee UCC.

The Seattle UCC (King+Pierce+Snohomish) will have about five and a quarter CDs, so keeping them together in a region of 6 CDs to gives this plan. The four single CDs are with 5% of the quota and the 6 CD Seattle region is 5.945 CDs in size.



In the above plan both the pack and cover of the Seattle UCC are preserved. King county will be with 5% of 3 CDs by itself. Since it is slightly over 3 CDs it can contribute the mountain area towards Stevens Pass to an Everett-Bellingham region large enough for 2 CDs since Snohomish is too large for a single CD. Pierce is also too large for a single CD and combine with the Olympic peninsula for another 2 CD region. That results in the following plan.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #96 on: May 24, 2015, 01:00:37 PM »

OR is currently forecast to still have 5 CDs after 2020. That fits very well with the current projection of Multnomah county to have almost exactly 20% of the state population. A 5 CD split can preserve the UCCs (3 CDs for the Portland UCC) and keep whole counties with less than 2.5% deviation from the quota.



However, OR is on the bubble to gain a 6th CD, so it's useful to look at that as well. Multnomah will be too large for one CD and going south with the new CD requires chops to counties and UCCs. If the counties along the Columbia are combined with Clackamas and the remainder of Multnomah, it is possible to create a 6 CD plan that only splits Multnomah, chops no UCCs, and stays with 2.5% of the quota.

Logged
Skill and Chance
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,522
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #97 on: May 24, 2015, 01:32:18 PM »

OR is currently forecast to still have 5 CDs after 2020. That fits very well with the current projection of Multnomah county to have almost exactly 20% of the state population. A 5 CD split can preserve the UCCs (3 CDs for the Portland UCC) and keep whole counties with less than 2.5% deviation from the quota.



However, OR is on the bubble to gain a 6th CD, so it's useful to look at that as well. Multnomah will be too large for one CD and going south with the new CD requires chops to counties and UCCs. If the counties along the Columbia are combined with Clackamas and the remainder of Multnomah, it is possible to create a 6 CD plan that only splits Multnomah, chops no UCCs, and stays with 2.5% of the quota.



What's the partisanship for the 3 westernmost CDs on the 5 CD map?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #98 on: May 24, 2015, 02:26:44 PM »

OR is currently forecast to still have 5 CDs after 2020. That fits very well with the current projection of Multnomah county to have almost exactly 20% of the state population. A 5 CD split can preserve the UCCs (3 CDs for the Portland UCC) and keep whole counties with less than 2.5% deviation from the quota.



However, OR is on the bubble to gain a 6th CD, so it's useful to look at that as well. Multnomah will be too large for one CD and going south with the new CD requires chops to counties and UCCs. If the counties along the Columbia are combined with Clackamas and the remainder of Multnomah, it is possible to create a 6 CD plan that only splits Multnomah, chops no UCCs, and stays with 2.5% of the quota.



What's the partisanship for the 3 westernmost CDs on the 5 CD map?

I only used Census estimate data which doesn't have electoral results. If someone wants to pull up the Pres '08 and '12 D and R votes by county from Atlas, it would be straightforward to get a PVI.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #99 on: May 25, 2015, 06:06:26 PM »

OR is currently forecast to still have 5 CDs after 2020. That fits very well with the current projection of Multnomah county to have almost exactly 20% of the state population. A 5 CD split can preserve the UCCs (3 CDs for the Portland UCC) and keep whole counties with less than 2.5% deviation from the quota.



However, OR is on the bubble to gain a 6th CD, so it's useful to look at that as well. Multnomah will be too large for one CD and going south with the new CD requires chops to counties and UCCs. If the counties along the Columbia are combined with Clackamas and the remainder of Multnomah, it is possible to create a 6 CD plan that only splits Multnomah, chops no UCCs, and stays with 2.5% of the quota.



That 6 CD plan would be very, very competitive. It'd make DeFazio's area much less safe, probably end Greg Walden's political career with Presidential turnout (unless he moves from Hood River) and that new Salem/Corvallis district would probably start as a Lean D tossup.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 10  
« 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 0.057 seconds with 11 queries.