Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 06, 2019, 01:04:50 am
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  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 8136 times)
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: October 18, 2015, 06:36:33 pm »

Why do we always use '08 numbers when that was an abnormal election and 2012 would be much more relevant...?

The app only has 2008 numbers, unfortunately.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: October 18, 2015, 06:46:03 pm »

Washington



1: 65.1% Obama, 33.2% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 50.1% Obama, 47.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Toss-Up
Logged
Brittain33
brittain33
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,961


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: October 18, 2015, 06:53:43 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

Great map. If I were doing this, I would make the purple district more urban by extending it down the coast to Perth Amboy, Woodbridge, Edison, as far as New Brunswick, and shed the affluent towns of north Bergen and western Essex county to the green district.

I'd also put Trenton and most of Mercer County as far as Princeton in the southern district in exchange for coastal Monmouth County through Middletown as far as Long Branch.

These changes would align the districts more with the commuter rail lines and television catchment areas, which is just one way to do it.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: October 18, 2015, 06:57:43 pm »
« Edited: October 18, 2015, 07:00:13 pm by ElectionsGuy »

Illinois



1: 49.6% Obama, 48.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely R

4: 54.3% Obama, 44.3% McCain
2016 Rating: Toss-Up



2: 84.7% Obama, 14.4% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

3: 61.3% Obama, 37.6% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

In the 2nd district, whites are a plurality of the voter age population, but blacks are a plurality of the total population.
Logged
rpryor03
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,668
Bahamas


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: October 18, 2015, 07:08:20 pm »

Why do we always use '08 numbers when that was an abnormal election and 2012 would be much more relevant...?

Because that's what Dave's Redistricting App gives us.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: October 18, 2015, 07:13:42 pm »

Georgia



1: 64.7% Obama, 34.6% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 68.5% McCain, 30.5% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

3: 54.4% McCain, 45.1% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

1st district is plurality black.
Logged
Sol
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,757


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: October 18, 2015, 08:16:11 pm »

For Maryland, you could also do a black influence district.
Logged
Figueira
84285
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,713


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: October 18, 2015, 09:53:15 pm »

Why do we always use '08 numbers when that was an abnormal election and 2012 would be much more relevant...?

Dave's Redistricting App only has 2008 numbers. If 2012 data were easily available I'd agree.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: October 18, 2015, 10:31:56 pm »

I have Florida, New York, and Texas ready. Anybody want to call California?
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: October 19, 2015, 09:16:00 am »

The arbitrary county chops in IL make no sense except to create marginally straight lines. Given the large populations there's no reason to chop any county except Cook. In chopping Cook more weight should be given to minority interests.

This plan maintains townships in Cook and neighborhoods in Chicago. It creates a strong minority district with a plurality Black population that is only about a third white. By linking the north side of Cook with Lake and Kane the large Hispanic populations in suburban Aurora, Elgin, and Waukegan are grouped together.

Politically the Cook districts are both strong D, the remaining suburban-NW IL district is lean R and the downstate district is strong R.

Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,852


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: October 20, 2015, 12:31:25 am »

The arbitrary county chops in IL make no sense except to create marginally straight lines. Given the large populations there's no reason to chop any county except Cook. In chopping Cook more weight should be given to minority interests.

This plan maintains townships in Cook and neighborhoods in Chicago. It creates a strong minority district with a plurality Black population that is only about a third white. By linking the north side of Cook with Lake and Kane the large Hispanic populations in suburban Aurora, Elgin, and Waukegan are grouped together.

Politically the Cook districts are both strong D, the remaining suburban-NW IL district is lean R and the downstate district is strong R.



It looks like you've chopped the city of Chicago, which gives it outsized influence in two districts instead of just the one that it deserves.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,466


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: October 20, 2015, 08:41:26 am »

The arbitrary county chops in IL make no sense except to create marginally straight lines. Given the large populations there's no reason to chop any county except Cook. In chopping Cook more weight should be given to minority interests.

This plan maintains townships in Cook and neighborhoods in Chicago. It creates a strong minority district with a plurality Black population that is only about a third white. By linking the north side of Cook with Lake and Kane the large Hispanic populations in suburban Aurora, Elgin, and Waukegan are grouped together.

Politically the Cook districts are both strong D, the remaining suburban-NW IL district is lean R and the downstate district is strong R.



It looks like you've chopped the city of Chicago, which gives it outsized influence in two districts instead of just the one that it deserves.

Because in Cook it isn't just about Chicago, but about minority representation. With the large black population and significant Latino population, a cut where I placed it makes a BVAP plurality. If Chicago is kept whole, it's a white plurality.

To keep whole counties, I would also have to chop Chicago to put O'Hare airport with non-Chicago Cook. It's not big, but it is a chop.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #37 on: October 20, 2015, 02:42:25 pm »

It turns out CA is quite well suited to 10 districts. Things turned out quite nicely.

No, I don't know the partisan divisions. I turned off the partisan numbers to reduce the size of the file, to keep the program from crashing. Four of the districts are clearly safe Dem, with the Riverside-San Bernadino-Imperial CD probably strong lean Dem (the Pub parts of Riverside are mostly not in it), the San Diego based district competitive, the Orange County based district lean Pub, the Santa Barbara-Ventura-Antelope Valley-Kern County district competitive (it has some Democratic areas of the San Fernando Valley to offset Kern's Pub margins), the Sacramento based district probably lean Dem (Sacramento and San Joaquin probably more than offset the Pub areas), and the southern Central Valley-Sierra district perhaps lean Pub, or maybe competitive (it has hyper Dem Santa Cruz and Dem Monterey County in it to offset much of the Pub areas).

The San Gabriel based district is 58.7% HVAP, the Riverside-San Bernadino district 45.5% HVAP, the southern Central Valley district 40.5% HVAP, and the Kern-Ventura-Santa Barbara-Antelope Valley district 40.4% HVAP. Given the huge size of the districts, other than the San Gabriel Valley district, with a contiguous Hispanic zone, I don't think the VRA really applies.






Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #38 on: October 20, 2015, 02:56:12 pm »

The arbitrary county chops in IL make no sense except to create marginally straight lines. Given the large populations there's no reason to chop any county except Cook. In chopping Cook more weight should be given to minority interests.

This plan maintains townships in Cook and neighborhoods in Chicago. It creates a strong minority district with a plurality Black population that is only about a third white. By linking the north side of Cook with Lake and Kane the large Hispanic populations in suburban Aurora, Elgin, and Waukegan are grouped together.

Politically the Cook districts are both strong D, the remaining suburban-NW IL district is lean R and the downstate district is strong R.



It looks like you've chopped the city of Chicago, which gives it outsized influence in two districts instead of just the one that it deserves.

Because in Cook it isn't just about Chicago, but about minority representation. With the large black population and significant Latino population, a cut where I placed it makes a BVAP plurality. If Chicago is kept whole, it's a white plurality.

To keep whole counties, I would also have to chop Chicago to put O'Hare airport with non-Chicago Cook. It's not big, but it is a chop.

Except that the VRA does not apply to plurality districts, and Illinois does not have a Florida type law, so you are making a political-policy choice here.
Logged
cinyc
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,852


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #39 on: October 20, 2015, 03:45:01 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2015, 03:47:42 pm by cinyc »

Except that the VRA does not apply to plurality districts, and Illinois does not have a Florida type law, so you are making a political-policy choice here.

Well, you split Los Angeles into 3 districts for no apparent reason, too.  

I dissent from the party line that counties need to be kept whole but cities do not - especially where city boundaries cross county lines.  I think incorporated cities should be kept whole first, to avoid the largest cities from having undue influence over the rest of the state. People have more allegiance to their city than their county, anyway.  

The part of Chicago in DuPage County has little to no population, anyway, so putting O'Hare in a Chicago-only district would be a microchop of a county at best- and utterly meaningless if the few people who used to live near the airport in DuPage Chicago have been moved due to the runway reconfiguration project, anyway.  Who cares if boundaries cross county lines to keep a city intact if nobody lives there?
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #40 on: October 20, 2015, 03:46:45 pm »

muon, I think having rationality and commonality are more important than having perfect counties. Having northern Cook (inner suburbs) and Kane (outer suburbs) together like that without any of DuPage looks weird to me.

Here's what I was going for: for the second, it was the city of Chicago + some inner suburbs. The 3rd was the closest suburbs to Chicago. The 4th was Northern Illinois + exurbs. The 1st was downstate. Its not perfect, but it works. I'm not going to worry about having full counties when its very inconvenient.
Logged
Torie
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 38,044
Samoa


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #41 on: October 20, 2015, 03:53:48 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2015, 04:17:58 pm by Torie »

Except that the VRA does not apply to plurality districts, and Illinois does not have a Florida type law, so you are making a political-policy choice here.

Well, you split Los Angeles into 3 districts for no apparent reason, too.  

I dissent from the party line that counties need to be kept whole but cities do not - especially where city boundaries cross county lines.  I think incorporated cities should be kept whole first, to avoid the largest cities from having undue influence over the rest of the state. People have more allegiance to their city than their county, anyway.  

The part of Chicago in DuPage County has little to no population, anyway, so putting O'Hare in a Chicago-only district would be a microchop of a county at best- and utterly meaningless if the few people who used to live near the airport in DuPage Chicago have been moved due to the runway reconfiguration project, anyway.  Who cares if boundaries cross county lines to keep a city intact if nobody lives there?

It's impossible to keep LA City whole due to its shape going down to the harbor, and trapping the coastal cities. Even without the trapping issue, the city in 2010 has about 200,000 too many people to be all in one district anyway. In addition, the VRA drives the Hispanic San Gabriel Valley district, and it needs to take in some of LA City to get to a high enough Hispanic percentage, and that is certainly the case if one wants to avoid an erose mess. Otherwise I would not have done that chop, because I am sensitive to tri-chopping anything, including a city. Counties rule over cities in the metric that Muon2 and I set up, and in addition, putting aside the VRA, there should be but one muni chop between districts. Your mileage varies, which is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

I might add that the Kern-Santa Barbara-Ventura district has about 27% of its population in LA city, so the city is hardly dominating. The Hispanic San Gabriel Valley based district has about 19% of its population in the city.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #42 on: October 20, 2015, 03:59:03 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2015, 04:11:10 pm by ElectionsGuy »

Florida



1. 57.7% McCain, 42.3% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

2. 50.7% Obama, 49.3% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean R

3. 51.5% Obama, 48.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Toss-Up

4. 53.6% McCain, 46.4% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R



5. 68.5% Obama, 31.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #43 on: October 20, 2015, 04:10:59 pm »

New York



1: 52.5% Obama, 46.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

4: 53.6% Obama, 44.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

5: 54.3% Obama, 44.1% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D



2: 80.7% Obama, 18.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

3: 82.4% Obama, 16.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #44 on: October 20, 2015, 06:01:54 pm »

Texas



1: 54.9% Obama, 45.1% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

2: 55.3% Obama, 44.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

3: 52.4% McCain, 47.6% Obama
2016 Rating: Likely R

4: 58.1% Obama, 41.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

5: 67.0% McCain, 33.0% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

6: 65.4% McCain, 34.6% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

7: 67.6% McCain, 32.4% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

Democrats should really thank Texas's political geography for the way this panned out. I originally had San Antonio and Austin grouped together, with the 4th district including El Paso and Republican rural areas. Turned out, that produced 4/7 Obama districts (with the other three extremely Republican, of course)! So I had to change it as that would be unfair. But, this is just a consequence of extreme urban rural polarization. The metro areas are just D enough to give Democrats an edge, while the Republicans have very Republican districts of their own, almost the opposite of what usually happens.
Logged
ElectionsGuy
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,692
United States


Political Matrix
E: 4.90, S: -7.65

P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #45 on: October 20, 2015, 07:56:33 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2015, 07:59:36 pm by ElectionsGuy »

Safe R:

AL-AL
AK-AL
AR-AL
CO-02
FL-01
GA-2
GA-3
ID-AL
IN-02
KS-AL
KY-AL
LA-AL
MS-AL
MO-02
MT-AL
NE-AL
ND-AL
OH-03
OK-AL
PA-04
SC-AL
SD-AL
TN-02
TX-05
TX-06
TX-07
UT-AL
WV-AL
WY-AL

Likely R

AZ-02
IL-01
IN-01
NC-03
TX-03

Lean R

AZ-01
CA-?? (Orange County)
FL-02
FL-04
MI-01
MN-02
MO-01
NC-01
OH-02
PA-03
TN-01

Toss-Up

CA-?? (San Diego + some Riverside)
CA-?? (Central California)
FL-03
IL-04
IA-AL
NH-AL
PA-02
VA-02
WA-02

Lean D

CA-?? (San Bernardino + most of Riverside + Imperial)
CA-?? (Northern California + Sacramento)
CA-?? (Bakersfield + Northern LA County)
MI-03
NV-AL
NJ-01
NJ-02
NY-01
NY-04
NY-05
TX-01
TX-02
VA-01
WI-01

Likely D

IL-03
ME-AL
MD-02
NM-AL
NC-02
OR-AL
TX-04
WI-02

Safe D

CA-?? (LA County)
CA-?? (LA County)
CA-?? (NW Coast + SF)
CA-?? (San Jose)
CO-01
CT-AL
DE-AL
FL-05
GA-01
HI-AL
IL-02
MD-01
MA-01
MA-02
MI-02
MN-01
NJ-03
NY-02
NY-03
OH-01
PA-01
RI-AL
VT-AL
WA-01

Overall, 46 D favored seats, 45 R favored seats, 9 toss-ups. 34 Competitive seats, with 14 leaning D and 11 leaning R. That suggests there's around a ceiling of 66 D seats and 68 R seats. Overall, this system would lead (I think) to a less Republican Senate than we have now.

Using the electoral college with this system:



Obama still wins 332-206 if my math is correct.
Logged
Southern Speaker Punxsutawney Phil
TimTurner
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,947
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #46 on: October 20, 2015, 11:21:13 pm »
« Edited: October 20, 2015, 11:54:19 pm by TimTurner »



1. (blue) 52.1% Obama, 47% McCain
2016 Rating: Tossup

2. (white) 53.4% Obama, 45.8% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,199
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #47 on: October 21, 2015, 03:25:28 am »

Except that the VRA does not apply to plurality districts, and Illinois does not have a Florida type law, so you are making a political-policy choice here.

Well, you split Los Angeles into 3 districts for no apparent reason, too.  

I dissent from the party line that counties need to be kept whole but cities do not - especially where city boundaries cross county lines.  I think incorporated cities should be kept whole first, to avoid the largest cities from having undue influence over the rest of the state. People have more allegiance to their city than their county, anyway.  

The part of Chicago in DuPage County has little to no population, anyway, so putting O'Hare in a Chicago-only district would be a microchop of a county at best- and utterly meaningless if the few people who used to live near the airport in DuPage Chicago have been moved due to the runway reconfiguration project, anyway.  Who cares if boundaries cross county lines to keep a city intact if nobody lives there?

It's impossible to keep LA City whole due to its shape going down to the harbor, and trapping the coastal cities. Even without the trapping issue, the city in 2010 has about 200,000 too many people to be all in one district anyway. In addition, the VRA drives the Hispanic San Gabriel Valley district, and it needs to take in some of LA City to get to a high enough Hispanic percentage, and that is certainly the case if one wants to avoid an erose mess. Otherwise I would not have done that chop, because I am sensitive to tri-chopping anything, including a city. Counties rule over cities in the metric that Muon2 and I set up, and in addition, putting aside the VRA, there should be but one muni chop between districts. Your mileage varies, which is fine. Different strokes for different folks.

I might add that the Kern-Santa Barbara-Ventura district has about 27% of its population in LA city, so the city is hardly dominating. The Hispanic San Gabriel Valley based district has about 19% of its population in the city.
I think you should put Compton and Carson in the OC district, then you could move the LA boundary east and the San Gabriel district south.

Also, I would swap Contra Costa and San Mateo.
Logged
Sol
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,757


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #48 on: October 21, 2015, 04:49:31 pm »

Is it possible to draw a majority latino district in FL?
Logged
VPH
vivaportugalhabs
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,259
United States


Political Matrix
E: -6.58, S: 0.87

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #49 on: October 21, 2015, 05:01:59 pm »

How does one make DRA work on Chrome now?
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