2012 Electoral Vote Changes

[BushKenya]

What states do you see losing/gaining Electoral Votes for 2012?  Any losing/gaining a significant amount (3 or more either way)?

[LINCOLN REPUBLICAN]

No state losing or gaining 3 or 4 electoral votes.  That's a big shift.

Possiblities:

California and Texas picking up 1 or 2 electoral votes each. 

New York losing 1 electoral vote.

Arizona picking up 1 electoral vote.

Michigan and Pennsylvania losing 1 electoral vote each.

Florida picking up 1 electoral vote.

[MaC]

Ohio and New York's said to lose two (by muon2)

[WMS]

I'll take care of this question.

Paging muon2 and jimrtex, paging muon2 and jimrtex...

[muon2]

If I may be of service ...

Every year in late December the Census Bureau releases estimates for the population of all states. I've created a spreadsheet to take those estimates each year and project the changes to apportionment after the next census. It resulted in this thread last time.

The bottom line changes I derived were:

AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1

[ATFFL]

Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

[AkSaber]

Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

[jacob_101]

Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

That is why Dems need to focus more on the regions that are actually growing. The more they try the Kerry strategy of focusing too hard on one state, the mroe lopsided future elections will be.

Because the election was so close, Kerry had to focus on a handful of states.  Only a handful were in "play".  It wouldn't make much sense for him to focus on fast growing states like Arizona and Texas, where Republicans had sizeable wins.

Ohio and Florida were his only real chances of winning.

[BushKenya]

Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

That is why Dems need to focus more on the regions that are actually growing. The more they try the Kerry strategy of focusing too hard on one state, the mroe lopsided future elections will be.

Because the election was so close, Kerry had to focus on a handful of states.  Only a handful were in "play".  It wouldn't make much sense for him to focus on fast growing states like Arizona and Texas, where Republicans had sizeable wins.

Ohio and Florida were his only real chances of winning.

I believe if Kerry had more states in play, we may have been talking about the 1st Mid-Term of the Kerry Administration and Kerry's re-election.  As it is, Bush won by a fairly sizeable margin as compared to 2000.

[Tender Branson]

The fast growing Republican states will gain most. We´ll have to see what the next census shows, but anyway it will be much the same like last time i suppose. Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Colorado,  North Carolina. Additionally Utah and Virginia may gain one. California will get some, maybe Washington too. New England and the Midwest are losing.

[Sam Spade]

Texas and Florida are the most likely candidates to gain +3.

2008 should be the last election where Ohio holds the all-important stateswing status it's held since 1896 (before that, it was New York).

After that, it'll be Florida, most likely.

[jerusalemcar5]

You muon, check out my 2030 map in the Poltical Demographics board.  I'd like to see what you think.

[jerusalemcar5]

I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

[BushKenya]

I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.

[Tender Branson]

I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.

Wouldn´t Oregon get an 8th then ? Oregon has a higher population than Oklahoma now and it´s growing far faster than Oklahoma.

[BushKenya]

I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.

Wouldn´t Oregon get an 8th then ? Oregon has a higher population than Oklahoma now and it´s growing far faster than Oklahoma.

Okay, give both Oregon and Oklahoma an 8th and take one away from Texas and California.

[muon2]

OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

[BushKenya]

OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

[Grad Students are the Worst]

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I'm afraid that virtually all of the states you mentioned are pretty out of play.  California may have a ton of electoral votes, but it's more competitive than Oklahoma, and it was paid very little attention in 2004.

[jerusalemcar5]

OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

The issue is that those states for the most part DON'T have closely divided electorates.  On top of that they contain a fairly insignificant number of electors.

Going after states that can swing huge portions of the College is much more important.

However, if electors were given out proportionally then the story would be MUCH different.

[muon2]

OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I hope you didn't interpret my post as in anyway demeaning OK. My post was a purely mathematical exercise using current Census estimates to predict the next round of reapportionment. Note that MN was the next most likely to gain a seat, and it isn't really a big state either.

[BushKenya]

OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I hope you didn't interpret my post as in anyway demeaning OK. My post was a purely mathematical exercise using current Census estimates to predict the next round of reapportionment. Note that MN was the next most likely to gain a seat, and it isn't really a big state either.

muon,

I didn't think you were demeaning Oklahoma, it just seems a lot of people do think California is more important than Oklahoma, maybe not so much on this forum, but a lot of other people.

I guess as long as Oklahoma never goes down to 6 we'll be okay.

[muon2]

Is Illinois suppose to lose a seat next time?  Will Arkansas ever have a chance at gaining a seat?

IL is on the bubble to lose a seat after the 2010 census. It's only been growing at 0.5%/yr compared to the national average of 1.0%/yr. IL would need about 125K more population (out of about 13 M) to retain its 19th seat.

AR is unlikely to see a gain or a loss. It's at the almost ideal population for its four seats, and it is growing slightly slower than average (0.7%/yr). Even the current projections out to 2030 show no significant change relative to the nation as a whole.

[Josh/Devilman88]

What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

[jerusalemcar5]

What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.