What is the Political Geography of California?

[muon2]

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...

An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

[Nyvin]

"Southern California" sounds like a pity Republican state so the idea can pass Congress,  I see no other reason for it otherwise.  You can easily draw three safe dem states.

[jimrtex]

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...

An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

[jimrtex]

The initiative says that the States would be named Northern California, etc. or whatever the citizens decide to name them. It would be interesting whether they would choose names to avoid conflicts over postal codes.

Or perhaps the USPS would assign CN and CS.

[muon2]

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...

An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

Which table has the non-resident population by county?

[jimrtex]

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...

An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

Which table has the non-resident population by county?

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

Which table has the non-resident population by county?

None.

But we know the Apportionment Population and the Resident Population for each state, and thus know the Overseas Population. I calculated the AppPop/ResPop - 1, which is the percentage increase in population due to inclusion of the overseas population.

96.5% of the overseas population is Department of Defense-related, mostly military, but some civilian DOD employees. There are a 1.44 military dependents per military person, which indicates a lot of the military are in places like Germany, England, and Japan where families can live with their military spouse/parent.

I think, but am not sure, that military personnel deployed (temporary status) overseas, but stationed in the USA are counted domestically. Naval personnel are counted based on where their ship is homeported. So soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, or sailors from a ship based in San Diego would be counted domestically, at the base they are stationed at or port (i.e. place of usual residence).

States are based on administrative records. The military may have three addresses associated with personnel:

Home of Record: Generally where they resided before they entered service (only 59% had this).
Legal Residence: Where they (don't) pay state income taxes.
Last Duty Station: Where they were last stationed.

Hawaii places more emphasis on legal residence, assuming that if military aren't paying local state taxes, they are more likely to consider some other State their permanent residence.

Among the states, there is a definite small state bias (Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota are the top four), there is also a no-income tax bias as Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington are exceptional high given their larger size. There is some regional bias towards the South, but some of this may be associated with the preponderance of military bases in the South. Service members with years of service may pick up a new State while stationed at any number of locations. Age may also play a factor. States with comparatively fewer persons of military-service age, such as Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah have a lower ratio of military to the total population. And finally attitudes towards the military may factor in.

The overseas/resident ratio for California in 2010 is 0.23%. The overseas residents for the three Californias must average this amount. I surmise that Northern California may be lower than the average. There are fewer military bases. Someone of Chinese descent from San Francisco, or Indian descent from Fremont is less likely to join the military than a Hispanic from Fresno or Fontana. And there may be family military traditions associated with San Diego.

But there is no reason to believe that NoCal would be lower than the current low of Massachusetts or New Jersey, of 0.18%. So let's assume that NoCal is 0.18%, and Cal is 0.25%, and SoCal is 0.26% (this is about the same as Illinois for example).

NoCar overseas share is 0.32%.

Based on the resident population, NoCal has a 0.25% lead over NoCar for the 435th seat.

Based on resident population, Texas is 435th, NoCal is 434th, and NoCar is 436th. Texas larger overseas share 0.49% will move it ahead of NoCal.

But an estimated gap 0.14% (NoCar - NoCal) overseas, does not make up the complete 0.25% lead based on residents. NoCal would have to have a 0.07% overseas share for that to happen, and that would give NoCal an overseas share less than half of even the lowest States.
but its larger overseas share will push it ahead of North Carolina.

My estimates for 2016 and projections for 2020 are based on resident population only.

For 2016, SoCal is 431st (to gain the 19th), and California is 437th (to retain a 17th seat).

Texas (436th) could have passed New York (435th) based on overseas population.

[muon2]

That's all i wanted to say on this subject. And it portends big problems in the future. After all -  talks about splitting California into up to 6 states arose mostly because of existing political situation, and they may be a harbringers of what will come...

An initiative to divide California into 3 states has been submitted for review by the Attorney General. It is much simpler than the 6 California proposal, and would simply give California's legislative consent to be divided into three states (when Kentucky, Maine, and West Virginia became states, Virginia, Massachusetts, and Virginia legislatures gave consent).

Virginia had given consent for the formation of Kentucky while the Constitution was being ratified. The Continental Congress decided not to act while the Constitution was pending. When Maine split off, a very large share of the population was in Maine, and one might have even conceived that a majority of the population would be in Maine. Consent for formation of West Virginia was given by the remnant of the legislature that was meeting in Wheeling. After West Virginia became a state, the Virginia legislature was dormant.

The three proposed states are:

California: Los Angeles to Monterey + San Benito.

Northern California: Everything else north of Merced/Mariposa, except Mono.

Southern California: Everything else south of Fresno/Madera, including Mono.

In such case "California" and "Northern California" will surely be Democratic, "Southern California" - probably swing...

"California" -- six counties, 2010 population 11,805,781; voted for Clinton 69% to 25% for Trump.
"Northern California" -- 40 counties, 2010 population 12,392,396; voted for Clinton 65% to 28% for Trump.
"Southern California" -- 12 counties; 2010 population 13,055,779; voted for Clinton 51.57% to 41.86% for Trump.

It's not at all clear how the current 53 seats in the House would be divided up.

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

Which table has the non-resident population by county?

Had those three states existed in the last reapportionment with those populations, then Cal and NorCal would each have gotten 17 seats and SoCal would have gotten 18 seats. That only adds up to 52, and NC would have received a 14th seat instead.

However, the population total for the three states above is 37,253,956. The 2010 apportionment population of CA in 2010 was 37,341,989. The extra 88,033 population was due to overseas and military population assigned to CA for reapportionment but not used for redistricting. Depending on how that extra population split between the three states, it might have been enough to shift a seat to NorCal from NC, but probably not.

Based on resident population, NoCal would have ranked 434 and received an 18th seat. Based on resident population, the quotient for NoCal is 0.25% higher than that for NoCar the 436th seat.

California overseas population is 0.23% of the resident population, versus 0.32% for NoCar. For NoCal to fall behind NoCar would require its overseas population to be 0.07%, which is quite improbable distribution among the three Californias and would be substantially lower than any other State (0.18% for Massachusetts and New Jersey). If we assume that those two states are the current lows because of lower military participation, we might expect a similar profile for NoCal, with SoCal and Cal bumping up a bit over 0.25%.

It is quite possible that NoCar would fall behind Texas into 435th place, but that is sufficient to get the 18th seat.

Based on county estimates, projected increases for 2010-2020:

NoCal +10.3%
Cal +5.6%
SoCal +10.1%

NoCal and SoCal are growing faster than the USA, while Cal is slower.

SoCal is projected to gain a 19th representative, and Cal to lose a representative to 16. These changes would already have occurred based on the 2016 estimates.

Which table has the non-resident population by county?

None.

But we know the Apportionment Population and the Resident Population for each state, and thus know the Overseas Population. I calculated the AppPop/ResPop - 1, which is the percentage increase in population due to inclusion of the overseas population.

96.5% of the overseas population is Department of Defense-related, mostly military, but some civilian DOD employees. There are a 1.44 military dependents per military person, which indicates a lot of the military are in places like Germany, England, and Japan where families can live with their military spouse/parent.

I think, but am not sure, that military personnel deployed (temporary status) overseas, but stationed in the USA are counted domestically. Naval personnel are counted based on where their ship is homeported. So soldiers deployed in Afghanistan, or sailors from a ship based in San Diego would be counted domestically, at the base they are stationed at or port (i.e. place of usual residence).

States are based on administrative records. The military may have three addresses associated with personnel:

Home of Record: Generally where they resided before they entered service (only 59% had this).
Legal Residence: Where they (don't) pay state income taxes.
Last Duty Station: Where they were last stationed.

Hawaii places more emphasis on legal residence, assuming that if military aren't paying local state taxes, they are more likely to consider some other State their permanent residence.

Among the states, there is a definite small state bias (Alaska, Wyoming, Vermont, and South Dakota are the top four), there is also a no-income tax bias as Florida, Tennessee, Texas, and Washington are exceptional high given their larger size. There is some regional bias towards the South, but some of this may be associated with the preponderance of military bases in the South. Service members with years of service may pick up a new State while stationed at any number of locations. Age may also play a factor. States with comparatively fewer persons of military-service age, such as Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Utah have a lower ratio of military to the total population. And finally attitudes towards the military may factor in.

The overseas/resident ratio for California in 2010 is 0.23%. The overseas residents for the three Californias must average this amount. I surmise that Northern California may be lower than the average. There are fewer military bases. Someone of Chinese descent from San Francisco, or Indian descent from Fremont is less likely to join the military than a Hispanic from Fresno or Fontana. And there may be family military traditions associated with San Diego.

But there is no reason to believe that NoCal would be lower than the current low of Massachusetts or New Jersey, of 0.18%. So let's assume that NoCal is 0.18%, and Cal is 0.25%, and SoCal is 0.26% (this is about the same as Illinois for example).

NoCar overseas share is 0.32%.

Based on the resident population, NoCal has a 0.25% lead over NoCar for the 435th seat.

Based on resident population, Texas is 435th, NoCal is 434th, and NoCar is 436th. Texas larger overseas share 0.49% will move it ahead of NoCal.

But an estimated gap 0.14% (NoCar - NoCal) overseas, does not make up the complete 0.25% lead based on residents. NoCal would have to have a 0.07% overseas share for that to happen, and that would give NoCal an overseas share less than half of even the lowest States.
but its larger overseas share will push it ahead of North Carolina.

My estimates for 2016 and projections for 2020 are based on resident population only.

For 2016, SoCal is 431st (to gain the 19th), and California is 437th (to retain a 17th seat).

Texas (436th) could have passed New York (435th) based on overseas population.

I follow. I redid my sheet and allocated the 88K non-resident population 33K,22K,33K with the lower number for NorCal. TX(36) stays at 433, MN(8 ) moves up to 434, and NorCal(18) edges out NC(14) for 435 by slightly more than 10K persons. I suspect I had a decimal point shift on the NR pop in my original sheet which caused the swap in positions.