Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 10, 2019, 08:04:35 am
News: 2020 Presidential Predictions (General) are now active.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  100 Senate Seats by population
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print
Author Topic: 100 Senate Seats by population  (Read 8140 times)
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: October 17, 2015, 09:22:52 pm »
« edited: October 18, 2015, 04:42:18 pm by ElectionsGuy »

I thought it would be cool to experiment what would happen if there's 100 Senate seats, but instead of 2 guaranteed by statehood and nothing else, it was decided by population. Still, there needs to be 1 per state, and because of this 24 states only have 1, but the rest have 2 or more, and California has 10. I'll draw the 26 states' districts for Senate (you all can help me as well), state how they voted in 2008, and they're hypothetical 'rating' for 2016. When we're done, we can see how the Senate might be different, and how the electoral college would be different using this system.



Since 25 of the states are already 'done' per say, here are my ratings for 2016. No need to state how they voted in 2008.

Safe R

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Toss-Up

Iowa and New Hampshire.

Lean D

Nevada

Likely D

Maine, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Safe D

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Edit - Modified based on jimrtex's map
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2015, 09:27:12 pm »

Minnesota



1: 59.2% Obama, 38.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 49.0% McCain, 48.6% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2015, 09:35:12 pm »
« Edited: October 17, 2015, 09:38:52 pm by ElectionsGuy »

Wisconsin



1: 53.8% Obama, 44.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

2. 58.7% Obama, 39.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

These ratings were actually pretty tough, because most of the swing from 2008 to 2012 occured in the 2nd district's rural areas. Milwaukee County is 1/3 of the 1st's population, and it actually swung slightly Obama in 2012. Its a pretty polarized and inelastic district so I decided to keep the first Lean D by default, but someone like Ron Johnson could certainly win it. The 2nd I think will always maintain a strong Democratic presence because of Madison, so I think Likely D is an appropriate rating. In 2012, the 1st probably went 51-52% Obama and the 2nd probably went 54-55% Obama.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2015, 09:57:25 pm »
« Edited: October 18, 2015, 12:44:28 am by Miles »

I think this is a pretty fair breakdown of NC:



Obama/McCain:

CD1 - 48.5/50.7
CD2 - 54.0/45.0
CD3 - 46.1/52.8

DEM/REP:

CD1 - 51.5/48.5
CD2 - 52.3/47.7
CD3 - 45.2/54.8

I can see the Republican nominee carry CD1, but Cooper carrying it in the Governor's race.

Hagan could run in CD2. Burr lives in CD2 (Winston-Salem), but he's represented a good chunk of CD3 in the House. Actually, Cooper lives in CD1 and would be the type of Democrat it would elect, though its still swingy in general.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2015, 10:08:25 pm »

^ Very nice

Missouri



1: 52.9% Obama, 45.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 53.1% McCain, 45.5% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

For MO-01, the areas in the district outside the St Louis core swung hard R in 2012, and they have been for several elections besides 2008. For that reason, and because I expect a Republican to perform better than 2016 than in 2012, I rated in Lean R. It was probably a dead even game in 2012, and Claire McCaskill could keep the district in her favor if she wanted to.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2015, 10:20:55 pm »

Massachusetts



1: 60.2% Obama, 37.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 64.0% Obama, 34.4% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2015, 10:23:44 pm »

Maryland



1: 68.2% Obama, 30.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 56.1% Obama, 42.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2015, 10:30:31 pm »

Tennessee



1: 49.8% McCain, 49.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 64.4% McCain, 34.1% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

The first district is surprisingly competitive as Nashville and Memphis are in the same district, but it'll only vote D in a wave year or if someone like Jim Cooper runs and gets enough rural white votes.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2015, 10:34:11 pm »

Indiana



1: 50.8% Obama, 48.1% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely R

2: 49.8% McCain, 49.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2015, 10:38:44 pm »

Arizona



1: 53.1% McCain, 45.8% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 54.2% McCain, 44.5% Obama
2016 Rating: Likely R

I think the 1st actually would've swung D, since AZ-7 was the hardest D swing in the country anywhere in 2012. And, as the metro grows, I expect (but am not very sure of) it to vote less R, so Lean R for that one.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,469


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2015, 10:43:48 pm »
« Edited: October 17, 2015, 10:58:36 pm by muon2 »

You might want to compare with the state plans constructed in this thread from 2014.

You should also say what is the limit on population inequality from the quota (exact, 0.5%, 5%), and under what conditions counties may be chopped for your version of this experiment.
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2015, 11:01:28 pm »

Ohio



1 (blue): 59.5% Obama, 39.0% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2 (green):  52.1% McCain, 46.4% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

2 (purple):  50.0% McCain, 48.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Likely R

NEOH makes a really clean district within 2,500 of ideal population and is a natural Democratic sink. The main question becomes where to put Toledo, though it doesn't change the partisan dynamics much either way. Ohio is pretty awkward with 3 districts; 4 works much better.
Logged
Grand Mufti of Northern Virginia
Frodo
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,692
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2015, 11:25:01 pm »

Maryland



1: 68.2% Obama, 30.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 56.1% Obama, 42.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

If DC (with the exception of a core federal district) was retroceded back to Maryland, how would that change this map? 
Logged
TJ in Oregon
TJ in Cleve
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 8,284
United States


Political Matrix
E: 0.13, S: 6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2015, 11:39:44 pm »

Pennsylvania



1 (blue): 69.9% Obama, 29.3% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2 (green): 50.6% Obama, 48.4% McCain
2016 Rating: Tossup

3 (purple): 50.6%% Obama, 48.3% McCain
2016 Rating: Tossup

4 (red): 53.0% McCain, 45.7% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: October 18, 2015, 12:31:50 am »

Maryland



1: 68.2% Obama, 30.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 56.1% Obama, 42.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

If DC (with the exception of a core federal district) was retroceded back to Maryland, how would that change this map?  

It would still have 2 districts, but district 2 would probably get more of Carroll, Prince George's, and Charles County, while DC would go to 1 under my scenario.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: October 18, 2015, 12:40:15 am »

For VA, I did NOVA + Shenandoah valley and Richmond + the south.



Obama/McCain:

CD1 - 54.0/45.2
CD2 - 51.5/47.6

DEM/REP

CD1 - 49.9/50.1
CD2 - 48.4/51.6

I suspect Warner would have 1 and Kaine would have 2.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,204
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: October 18, 2015, 01:24:19 am »

Ohio



1 (blue): 59.5% Obama, 39.0% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2 (green):  52.1% McCain, 46.4% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

2 (purple):  50.0% McCain, 48.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Likely R

NEOH makes a really clean district within 2,500 of ideal population and is a natural Democratic sink. The main question becomes where to put Toledo, though it doesn't change the partisan dynamics much either way. Ohio is pretty awkward with 3 districts; 4 works much better.
I would put the Ohio River with Cincinnati which places Toledo with Columbus.
Logged
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19,336
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: October 18, 2015, 01:39:53 am »

It would still have 2 districts, but district 2 would probably get more of Carroll, Prince George's, and Charles County, while DC would go to 1 under my scenario.

My stab at it. You're basically adding about 605K people to CD1. Thus, CD2 will have that many more people in a map without DC (the difference of the deviations).



With DC, CD1 is 75.1/23.9 Obama while CD2 is 55.0/43.6.
Logged
rpryor03
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,668
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: October 18, 2015, 04:34:58 pm »

Based off of jimrtex's suggestions:



CD 1 (blue) is the same.
CD 2 (green): Obama 50%, McCain 48.4%; Rating - Tossup/Lean R
CD 3 (purple): McCain 53.8%, Obama 44.6%; Rating - Safe R
Logged
Nyvin
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,597
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: October 18, 2015, 04:40:36 pm »

I don't think Senators should be divided up into districts.   They should still be statewide elected officials, maybe just using a different scheme then the current one.
Logged
rpryor03
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,668
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: October 18, 2015, 04:55:39 pm »

New Jersey



CD 1 (blue): Obama 53.4%, McCain 45.4%; Rating - Lean D
CD 2 (green): Obama 54%, McCain 45%; Rating - Lean D
CD 3 (purple): Obama 65.5%, McCain 33.7%; Rating - Safe D
Logged
rpryor03
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,668
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: October 18, 2015, 05:20:17 pm »

Michigan



CD 1 (blue): Obama 49.9%, McCain 48.4%; Rating - Tossup/Lean R
CD 2 (green): Obama 64.6%, McCain 33.9%; Rating - Safe D
CD 3 (purple): Obama 56.2%, McCain 42.1%; Rating - Lean D/Tossup
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: October 18, 2015, 06:13:01 pm »
« Edited: October 18, 2015, 06:21:00 pm by ElectionsGuy »

rpryor, if you uncheck the box at the top that says 'vote dist lines' we can see the districts a lot better.

You might want to compare with the state plans constructed in this thread from 2014.

You should also say what is the limit on population inequality from the quota (exact, 0.5%, 5%), and under what conditions counties may be chopped for your version of this experiment.

For the quota, I would prefer a very small one, under 5000 usually (though I usually am under 1000), and I would be pretty loose on county chops. Ideally, there should be no county chops but if it fits with the shape and region of the district its fine.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,698
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: October 18, 2015, 06:34:55 pm »

Colorado



1: 62.5% Obama, 35.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 53.5% McCain, 44.9% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R
Logged
Rockefeller GOP
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,941
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: October 18, 2015, 06:35:56 pm »

Why do we always use '08 numbers when that was an abnormal election and 2012 would be much more relevant...?
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC