Apportionment fun

[jimrtex]

The following is the projected change in representation between 2000 and 2010 in the House of Representatives (and the Electoral College) if the number of seats was a continuous rather than discrete function.


Alabama          -0.438
Alaska            0.002
Arizona           1.340
Arkansas         -0.173
California        2.163
Colorado          0.487
Connecticut      -0.172
Delaware          0.031
Florida           2.348
Georgia           1.042
Hawaii            0.022
Idaho             0.130
Illinois         -0.850
Indiana          -0.414
Iowa             -0.363
Kansas           -0.252
Kentucky         -0.279
Louisiana        -0.556
Maine            -0.055
Maryland          0.151
Massachusetts    -0.592
Michigan         -0.885
Minnesota        -0.124
Mississippi      -0.269
Missouri         -0.366
Montana          -0.065
Nebraska         -0.134
Nevada            0.871
New Hampshire     0.045
New Jersey       -0.282
New Mexico       -0.028
New York         -1.940
North Carolina    0.393
North Dakota     -0.117
Ohio             -1.357
Oklahoma         -0.254
Oregon            0.102
Pennsylvania     -1.491
Rhode Island     -0.034
South Carolina   -0.005
South Dakota     -0.067
Tennessee        -0.186
Texas             2.645
Utah              0.198
Vermont          -0.041
Virginia          0.314
Washington        0.172
West Virginia    -0.260
Wisconsin        -0.334
Wyoming          -0.035


Projected population for 2010 is based on assuming that the population in each state increased at a constant annual rate between the April 1, 2000 census and the July 1, 2003 Census Bureau estimate, and that the same rate will be sustained until the 2010 census.

The apportionment for a state is based on:

   sqrt ( (P^2/Q^2) + 1/4 )

Where P is the population of the state, and Q is the population per representative (i.e. 50-state population divided by 435).

[Colin]

Maybe if I change the year in the code to 1968, before Maine adopted it's present system of choosing electors...



Yes, it works!  It doesn't work with 2012 though.  And wait, no Puerto Rico in my 1968 try.  I give up.
Phillip,

That's the District of Columbia.  That box appears in that location in all of the calculator-generated (if an election in or after 1964 is selected) and prediction maps.  That's a funny thought, though.

No state can have one or two electoral votes. The lowest number of electoral votes a state can have is 3.

[ilikeverin]

Maybe if I change the year in the code to 1968, before Maine adopted it's present system of choosing electors...



Yes, it works!  It doesn't work with 2012 though.  And wait, no Puerto Rico in my 1968 try.  I give up.
Phillip,

That's the District of Columbia.  That box appears in that location in all of the calculator-generated (if an election in or after 1964 is selected) and prediction maps.  That's a funny thought, though.

No state can have one or two electoral votes. The lowest number of electoral votes a state can have is 3.

That would be # of representatives, not # of EVs.

[khirkhib]

My congressional district was changed since the last election.  In 2002 I voted in congressional district 1 (I think) for David Wu.  Now I am in District 3 or 4 (i'm not sure on the numbers) for Darleen Hooley.   The redistricting may have been why the RNC thought they had a good shot at both of these seats.  It is difficult to imagine exactly how they would create a new district.  The largest congressional district of course in the 5th one but that has the least population.  Couldn't really split it.  Here they will have to do some serious work to get it right.  Montana on the otherhand would be pretty easy to district.  Maybe they should just do a major rework on all of the districts thorughout the states with specific guidelines against jerrymandering (sp) .  This data is old but it is what is what I could find quickly on google.  In 1998 the least population congressional district was Wyoming (big surprise there) with a population of 475503 and Rhode Island's districts were 501696 and 501798. Oklahoma however had three of the most population congressional districts with 1048270
1021721 and 981077.  OK Must have gotten in new congressional seat but I'm sure that it still isn't very even.  How close can the government get to real parity in congressional district population and what would be needed to do it and what should be the goals in writing congressional districts.  Can they be drawn in a way that improves American politics.  There are definately problems. If you could rewrite all the congressional districts or alter the rules how would you do it.  There are some that think that all states regardless of the population should have two reps.  The total number of reps we have now is really arbitray, for Puerto Rico to become a state, or DC Guam, The VIs for that matter to get reps their will need to be some serious working out to do.   The Virgina Islands 123,498 and Guam 160796 both have a population a quarter the size of Wyoming 498,703.  Puerto Rico has a population of 3,957,988 (about the same as Kentucky).  DC's population is 563,384 so more than the whole state of Wyoming.  You can see why it bugs them that they don't have a rep.
http://sobek.colorado.edu/~esadler/districtdatawebsite/CongressionalDistrictDatasetwebpage.htm

[Signet]

What if the Apportionment was based on voters, not population?

imo that would be a bad idea.  If your state is probably going to go for the other party (ie if you are a democrat in TX or a republican in NY), it's in your best interest not to vote - therefore denying the candidate you don't want to win added electoral votes and, if you're in a state that is likely to have lots of the other party's members as representatives, denying them seats in the House.

[jimrtex]

What if the Apportionment was based on voters, not population?

imo that would be a bad idea.  If your state is probably going to go for the other party (ie if you are a democrat in TX or a republican in NY), it's in your best interest not to vote - therefore denying the candidate you don't want to win added electoral votes and, if you're in a state that is likely to have lots of the other party's members as representatives, denying them seats in the House.

He probably meant voters rather than votes.  In the United Kingdom, districts are based numbers of registered electors (registration is more or less mandatory, so it is roughly based on the adult population).

[Bogart]

Cleaned up the map slightly

Looking over this, it looks pretty much like my prediction, except CA should be 56 reps instead of 58.  (Ah, I think one comes from Ohio and the other comes from Minnesota.  And another Ohio seat is going to Florida - you must have very different numbers than I have.)

Anyone have some more recent state population projecitons for 2010?  I can feed those numbers into my program (I really ought to create a Web interface for this...)  I think it's going to be a close battle between TX and FL for the 435th seat.

This is where I got my numbers. I'd love to get some more recent projections.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

[Bogart]

Here's another fun little use for this:  I discovered how much you would have to expand Congress for every state to have at least 2 Congressmen.  We would need 806, and they would distribute like this (with the 2 Senatorial EVs added):

California: 99
Texas: 62
New York: 56
Florida: 48
Illinois: 38
Pennsylvania: 37
Ohio: 34
Michigan: 30
New Jersey: 26
North Carolina: 25
Georgia: 25
Virginia: 22
Massachusetts: 20
Washington: 19
Indiana: 19
Missouri: 18
Tennessee: 18
Maryland: 17
Arizona: 17
Wisconsin: 17
Minnesota: 16
Louisiana: 15
Alabama: 15
Colorado: 14
Kentucky: 14
South Carolina: 14
Oregon: 12
Connecticut: 12
Oklahoma: 12
Mississippi: 10
Kansas: 10
Arkansas: 10
Iowa: 10
Nevada: 8
Utah: 8
Nebraska: 7
West Virginia: 7
New Mexico: 7
Hawaii: 6
Maine: 6
New Hampshire: 6
Idaho: 6
Montana: 5
Rhode Island: 5
North Dakota: 4
Delaware: 4
Vermont: 4
South Dakota: 4
Alaska: 4
Wyoming: 4

Wyoming, of course, gets the final seat.

[khirkhib]

Bogart, I've heard that projected out eventually the Electoral colllage system will fail because of population shifts and a real minority with the power of electing the president over a vast majority. How far out can we project state populations. What would the map look like in 2020, 2050 or even 2100.  True many things might affect state populations by then but it will interesting to see.  Especially when the Ogallala Fossil Aquafir becomes completely depleted (projected to happen sometime this century)  This will make life pretty hard in Kansas Nebraska, and Oklahoma  So these states will probably shrink in size relative to neighboring states.

[??????????]

Bogart, I've heard that projected out eventually the Electoral colllage system will fail because of population shifts and a real minority with the power of electing the president over a vast majority. How far out can we project state populations. What would the map look like in 2020, 2050 or even 2100.  True many things might affect state populations by then but it will interesting to see.  Especially when the Ogallala Fossil Aquafir becomes completely depleted (projected to happen sometime this century)  This will make life pretty hard in Kansas Nebraska, and Oklahoma  So these states will probably shrink in size relative to neighboring states.

I doubt the US will exist as we know it now to have to worry about that.

[khirkhib]

Why do you hate America so much?  Shouldn't the country be lead by people who are optomistic about the future.

[??????????]

Why do you hate America so much?  Shouldn't the country be lead by people who are optomistic about the future.

Me, hate America? Sorry I'm not a registered Democrat.

[Beefalow and the Consumer]

Bogart, I've heard that projected out eventually the Electoral colllage system will fail because of population shifts and a real minority with the power of electing the president over a vast majority. How far out can we project state populations. What would the map look like in 2020, 2050 or even 2100.  True many things might affect state populations by then but it will interesting to see.  Especially when the Ogallala Fossil Aquafir becomes completely depleted (projected to happen sometime this century)  This will make life pretty hard in Kansas Nebraska, and Oklahoma  So these states will probably shrink in size relative to neighboring states.

If the plains become uninhabitable deserts, chances are some states will have to be consolidated.

I imagine in 100 years we'll have perfected some sort of renewable energy, allowing for massive desalination and transport of water.  Fresh water will probably be an unlimited resource by 2100.

[jimrtex]

This is where I got my numbers. I'd love to get some more recent projections.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

These appear to have been made in 1995.  The schedule says that a new series of projections (based on the 2000 census) will be released in 2005.  A new series of national projections was released this past March.  As a first order correction, you could take the July 1, 2000 projection made in 1995, determine the relative error vs. the July 1, 2000 estimate made after the 2000 census, and apply that to the 2010 estimate.

[jimrtex]

Here's another fun little use for this:  I discovered how much you would have to expand Congress for every state to have at least 2 Congressmen.  We would need 806, and they would distribute like this (with the 2 Senatorial EVs added):
...

Wyoming, of course, gets the final seat.

In this scenario, DC would get a 4th EV.  The 23rd Amendment provides that DC gets the number of electors it would be entitled to if it were a state, but not more than the least populous state.  Since Wyoming would have 4 EV, 4 is the new maximum for DC.

[Signet]

Bogart, I've heard that projected out eventually the Electoral colllage system will fail because of population shifts and a real minority with the power of electing the president over a vast majority.

Regardless of what happens to our water supplies and state populations, it'd be hard to imagine a realistic scenerio where that happens.

A way the Electoral College could fail is if a small handful of states that often vote together ever got more than 50% of the electoral votes.  Something like CA being worth 150 and NY worth 120.  In that case, winning CA and NY would mean winning the election, regardless of how the rest of the country voted.  But since NY lost EV's the last time around, i don't see that as being very likely.

Of course, those states would have to have a sizeable majority of the nation's population in order to have that many EV's in the first place, since they get only 4 of the 100 "senate" votes.

Or a more ridiculous extreme, if CA became worth 270 electoral votes, whoever won that state would win the election  :lol:  Again, that's not likely at all... and if it ever did happen, they'd probably want to divide the state into a few smaller states.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

This is where I got my numbers. I'd love to get some more recent projections.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

Their numbers for 2000 don't match the 2000 ceneus

[zorkpolitics]

What if the Apportionment was based on voters, not population?

imo that would be a bad idea.  If your state is probably going to go for the other party (ie if you are a democrat in TX or a republican in NY), it's in your best interest not to vote - therefore denying the candidate you don't want to win added electoral votes and, if you're in a state that is likely to have lots of the other party's members as representatives, denying them seats in the House.

A much better idea would be to apportion the House based on the number of citizens in a state.  Currently states are rewarded for harboring illegal immigrants.  CA, FL, AZ, NY all have extra districts due to the presence of non-citizens (both legal and illegal).