Census Projections - Great Plains States

[muon2]

I noted in my recent Census Estimates thread that I had a web site to summarize my methodology and results. I also have applied the same method at the county and town level to project the population distributions within the states. I have shared some of those projections on other pages, particularly as it relates to future Congressional races.

In the interest of consolidation, I have begun to set up regional pages for the maps from that data. The first regional entry is for the Great Plains. You can access it from the link in the table on my page linked above, or directly here.

I'll be adding other regions as time permits. I'm open to discussion of the results as well.

[Padfoot]

great work muon2 this is excellent.

[jimrtex]

I noted in my recent Census Estimates thread that I had a web site to summarize my methodology and results. I also have applied the same method at the county and town level to project the population distributions within the states. I have shared some of those projections on other pages, particularly as it relates to future Congressional races.

What are the prospects of the computer-drawn redistricting maps constitutional amendment being passed in Illinois?

Some of the related provisions seem odd.  Decoupling the senate and house districts seems OK, but a 119:59 configuration might be a particularly hard ratio to map.  Because the ratio is so close to 2:1, in many cases it will be tempting to place 2 house districts within a senate district.  They would be well within population equal population guidelines (with the nested house districts only 0.85% larger than the ideal population if the senate district were the ideal population).  If one pair of house districts fit within a senate district, then the same might also happen for the neighbor and so on.

But you will then have to create the extra house district somewhere.  If there is some place where a senate district can contain an extra county and fit within a 5% deviation, but contain two slightly smaller house districts that don't include the extra county, then consideration of not splitting counties may result in the house districts being nested.  And this will trigger a similar shift in the next senate district.

Generally, nesting in some areas of the state, and not-nesting in other areas will produce a systemic bias with almost all house districts in one part of the state larger than ideal size, and most in another part of the state being smaller.

Or if you start out by placing a whole number of senate and house districts in Cook County based on its relative share of the state population, you are either going to have an exact 2:1 ratio of districts within Cook County, or an exact 2:1 ratio of districts outside Cook County.

Alternatively, if you are precise in population, but ignore political boundaries, then on the edges of the state you will have two house districts within a senate district, plus a sliver of a 3rd.  As you move inward, the sliver will gradually increase, and you could have one senate district with about 2/3 of 3 house districts.

The proposal for house terms of 4, 2, and 4 years also seems strange.  If there were to be 4-year terms you could simply delay application of the new districts for 2 years every 20 years.

[jimrtex]

I noted in my recent Census Estimates thread that I had a web site to summarize my methodology and results. I also have applied the same method at the county and town level to project the population distributions within the states. I have shared some of those projections on other pages, particularly as it relates to future Congressional races.

In the interest of consolidation, I have begun to set up regional pages for the maps from that data. The first regional entry is for the Great Plains. You can access it from the link in the table on my page linked above, or directly here.

I'll be adding other regions as time permits. I'm open to discussion of the results as well.

I think an 8-district map for Minnesota would be interesting as well.

[muon2]

I noted in my recent Census Estimates thread that I had a web site to summarize my methodology and results. I also have applied the same method at the county and town level to project the population distributions within the states. I have shared some of those projections on other pages, particularly as it relates to future Congressional races.

What are the prospects of the computer-drawn redistricting maps constitutional amendment being passed in Illinois?

Some of the related provisions seem odd.  Decoupling the senate and house districts seems OK, but a 119:59 configuration might be a particularly hard ratio to map.  Because the ratio is so close to 2:1, in many cases it will be tempting to place 2 house districts within a senate district.  They would be well within population equal population guidelines (with the nested house districts only 0.85% larger than the ideal population if the senate district were the ideal population).  If one pair of house districts fit within a senate district, then the same might also happen for the neighbor and so on.

But you will then have to create the extra house district somewhere.  If there is some place where a senate district can contain an extra county and fit within a 5% deviation, but contain two slightly smaller house districts that don't include the extra county, then consideration of not splitting counties may result in the house districts being nested.  And this will trigger a similar shift in the next senate district.

Generally, nesting in some areas of the state, and not-nesting in other areas will produce a systemic bias with almost all house districts in one part of the state larger than ideal size, and most in another part of the state being smaller.

Or if you start out by placing a whole number of senate and house districts in Cook County based on its relative share of the state population, you are either going to have an exact 2:1 ratio of districts within Cook County, or an exact 2:1 ratio of districts outside Cook County.

Alternatively, if you are precise in population, but ignore political boundaries, then on the edges of the state you will have two house districts within a senate district, plus a sliver of a 3rd.  As you move inward, the sliver will gradually increase, and you could have one senate district with about 2/3 of 3 house districts.

The proposal for house terms of 4, 2, and 4 years also seems strange.  If there were to be 4-year terms you could simply delay application of the new districts for 2 years every 20 years.

There are a number of versions of constitutional amendment filed for this session. Of course, it's hard to say if any will be called for a vote. The versions vary in scope, but address problems that have been evident since the 1970 Constitution was amended to eliminate multi-member districts in 1980.

The redistricting amendments would all use computer redistricting at some point. In one case it would be applied immediately, other versions use it instead of the current commission system in the event of a failure by either house to adopt their own map. The commission system was intended to force compromise, but instead works to induce a winner-takes-all attitude.

The term extension amendment is in part due to the extremely early primary in IL. Since filing is barely a year before the general election, signature requirements put members of the house on a 18 out of 24 month campaign cycle. The 4-2-4 most closely mirrors the current Senate cycle and the proposed 6-4/4-6 amendment proposal.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Edit:

The state demographer has estimated an annual 1.1% growth from 2000-2005.

How would Minnesota be affected if we had 10% increase between 2000-2010? (apportionment)

[Ban my account ffs!]

Also interesting:

While population growth was fastest in Minnesota in a "crescent" from Rochester in the southeast, through the Twin Cities, northwestward to St. Cloud, and in the lakes regions of Brainerd and Bemidji, income growth was by far slowest in the Twin Cities from 2000-2004.

Incomes grew the fastest in farming regions of SW Minnesota that actually lost population and in the Iron Range region that has been losing population since the 1960s.

A boost in iron demand because of increased global demand and rising corn prices due to increased ethanol demand have provided a huge boon for farmers in the corn belt, as incomes for farmers increased nearly 30% in some areas between 2000 and 2005.

[jimrtex]

Edit:

The state demographer has estimated an annual 1.1% growth from 2000-2005.

How would Minnesota be affected if we had 10% increase between 2000-2010? (apportionment)

Assuming the other states grew as fast as projected.

Minnesota would rank ahead of Texas if it gained 4K more; ahead of California with 8K, New Jersey with 20K, Pennsylvania with 42K.

If Minnesota were to increase at 10% it would add about 90K more than projected.

On the other hand if New York gained 46K more, it would rank ahead of Minnesota.  This would be a 3.1% increase instead of 2.8%.

Florida would pass Minnesota, if it gained 68K more (3.571M rather than 3.503M gain).

Oregon would pass Minnesota with an increase of 16K more (474K vs. 458K)

Washington with 29K (852K rather than 823K)

Illinois with 65K more (731 rather than 666K).

So there could be a reasonable range of 432 to 440.

[Ban my account ffs!]

Thanks.

I'm not very well versed in the science of congressional apportionment.  I'm guessing you give every state 1 seat, and then divide the remaining seats among hte population and find which seats are closest to gaining that last additional seat... but it's still pretty complicated.

[muon2]

Thanks.

I'm not very well versed in the science of congressional apportionment.  I'm guessing you give every state 1 seat, and then divide the remaining seats among hte population and find which seats are closest to gaining that last additional seat... but it's still pretty complicated.

I have a basic description of the process at this site. The priority value is the key measure to determine which state gets the next seat. I (or others) can try to give you more detail if you are interested.

[Ban my account ffs!]

I'm just mostly afraid of what the new districts will look like after 2010 with only 7 districts.. I mean, we can't escape the inevitable, but it doesn't bode well for rural Minnesota despite strong population growth in some rural areas.

Districts 4, 5, 7, and 8 will all have a deficit of residents for the new apportionment numbers, and so they'll most likely swallow most of the lost district up by making district 7 cover all of northern Minnesota while district one would come up further north in the west.  District 4 and 5 would grow in size geographically, but would likely be offset by large increases in districts 2, 3, and 6.

All in all, Minnesota will become a less rural state and we would likely have Jim Oberstar and Collin Peterson fighting each other for a seat (unless of course Jim retires, which he might do in such a situation).

District 1 would likely become more democratic as it would probably pick up the more liberal farm belt of southwestern MN and district 2 and 6 would remain solidly Republican.

We'll probably just have a 4D, 3R make up.  Oh well, what can you do about? 

We all know that Texas and California need more representation :S

[muon2]

I'm just mostly afraid of what the new districts will look like after 2010 with only 7 districts.. I mean, we can't escape the inevitable, but it doesn't bode well for rural Minnesota despite strong population growth in some rural areas.

Districts 4, 5, 7, and 8 will all have a deficit of residents for the new apportionment numbers, and so they'll most likely swallow most of the lost district up by making district 7 cover all of northern Minnesota while district one would come up further north in the west.  District 4 and 5 would grow in size geographically, but would likely be offset by large increases in districts 2, 3, and 6.

All in all, Minnesota will become a less rural state and we would likely have Jim Oberstar and Collin Peterson fighting each other for a seat (unless of course Jim retires, which he might do in such a situation).

District 1 would likely become more democratic as it would probably pick up the more liberal farm belt of southwestern MN and district 2 and 6 would remain solidly Republican.

We'll probably just have a 4D, 3R make up.  Oh well, what can you do about? 

We all know that Texas and California need more representation :S

MN typically has avoided gerrymanders in their CDs. Currently there are 3 districts for Hennepin and Ramsey, 2 districts for the suburban/exurban Twin Cities, and 3 districts outside of the Twins.

The loss of a seat impacts all the districts because the district size will jump substantially compared to the states overall growth. MN will have a population increase of about 9% this decade, but the district size will jump by almost 25%. This means that all districts will be larger geographically.

Since there is only enough population in the Twins and suburbs for four districts,  I would expect to see the exurbs make up some of the population shortfall in the outlying three districts. CD 1 can do well adding a little from the far south or sw of the exurban counties, and will probably look fairly similar to the current district. Like you, I expect that 7 and 8 would be largely combined across the north of the state.  That leaves St. Cloud in CD 6 to pick up the southern part of the present CD 7, but it will have to go well into the exurban counties like Wright to get enough population.

[jimrtex]

Since there is only enough population in the Twins and suburbs for four districts,  I would expect to see the exurbs make up some of the population shortfall in the outlying three districts. CD 1 can do well adding a little from the far south or sw of the exurban counties, and will probably look fairly similar to the current district. Like you, I expect that 7 and 8 would be largely combined across the north of the state.  That leaves St. Cloud in CD 6 to pick up the southern part of the present CD 7, but it will have to go well into the exurban counties like Wright to get enough population.

7 seats actually fits the population better which is roughly a 4:3 ratio between the metropolitan and outstate areas.  I think in 1990, the seats were 4:4 and the outstate seats came into the suburbs.  Under the current 5:3 plan, the metro seats extend outward - to include St Cloud for example.