template 2012 electoral map with new electoral vote totals?

[Lunar]

I'm skeptical of any map that shows CA holding steady or even gaining an EV.  We *should* lose exactly one next census and this thread is starting to conform to that belief

Wikipedia's one seemed alright before I saw that it showed Texas gaining 4 seats.  Is that really possible?  I'd predict three since they have a great economy, but four is huge.

[BM]

That does seem like a lot, but their population is booming rapidly. Here's a graph projecting the growth for the next 20 years:

[Lunar]

Maybe you're right.

I mean, if California had Nevada/Arizona-like growth numbers, we'd probably be gaining 5 or 6 each decade.

Four would be impressive and, for me, headline-grabbing, but I guess it makes more sense for Texas than any other state.  If I were a betting man though, I would place more money on three, but Texas does stand to be the biggest winner this decade EV-wise regardless.

I kind of want to move there to be honest.  Better job market than almost anywhere else.

[12th Doctor]

Larry Sabato's 2010 census projections actually show us gaining one too:
http://www.centerforpolitics.org/crystalball/article.php?id=DNW2007031501

Based on this:

Election 2012/2016/2020:

Election 2024/2028:

Election 2032/2036/2040:

This won't hold.  Eventually, economic opportunities will open back up in the old industrial areas, and with the overall decline in the relative power of the United States, the wealth that has fueled the idiotic and wasteful economic policies of the last 20 years, ie suburban sprawl, will reverse themselves.  People will tend back towards places where there is already a solid infrastructure in place, and where cities are actually, your know, cities.  This will favor the Northeast.

[Kaine for Senate '18]

This won't hold.  Eventually, economic opportunities will open back up in the old industrial areas, and with the overall decline in the relative power of the United States, the wealth that has fueled the idiotic and wasteful economic policies of the last 20 years, ie suburban sprawl, will reverse themselves.  People will tend back towards places where there is already a solid infrastructure in place, and where cities are actually, your know, cities.  This will favor the Northeast.

I hope you're right.  I'd love to see people return to places like MI, OH, WV, and PA.

[minionofmidas]

Definitely helps the Republicans more, unless the increasing populations in the southern and western states changes their political dynamics as well.

It does... (though not necessarily and everywhere in the Dems' favor). the thing is though that that's a constant process while the reapportionment is done only once every ten years, and after the fact - ie, the end-of-decade elections' EV distribution is biased towards whoever wins the people- bleeding states (which currently is the Democrats.)

This won't hold.  Eventually, economic opportunities will open back up in the old industrial areas, and with the overall decline in the relative power of the United States, the wealth that has fueled the idiotic and wasteful economic policies of the last 20 years, ie suburban sprawl, will reverse themselves.  People will tend back towards places where there is already a solid infrastructure in place, and where cities are actually, your know, cities.  This will favor the Northeast.

You can't extend a pattern indefinitely into the future. Rather than a simple reversal though, we should look out for a whole new pattern to emerge at some point.

[12th Doctor]

Definitely helps the Republicans more, unless the increasing populations in the southern and western states changes their political dynamics as well.

It does... (though not necessarily and everywhere in the Dems' favor). the thing is though that that's a constant process while the reapportionment is done only once every ten years, and after the fact - ie, the end-of-decade elections' EV distribution is biased towards whoever wins the people- bleeding states (which currently is the Democrats.)

This won't hold.  Eventually, economic opportunities will open back up in the old industrial areas, and with the overall decline in the relative power of the United States, the wealth that has fueled the idiotic and wasteful economic policies of the last 20 years, ie suburban sprawl, will reverse themselves.  People will tend back towards places where there is already a solid infrastructure in place, and where cities are actually, your know, cities.  This will favor the Northeast.

You can't extend a pattern indefinitely into the future. Rather than a simple reversal though, we should look out for a whole new pattern to emerge at some point.

Well, anything I say is going to have a Hell of a lot to do with circumstance, but you take my point, which is that the current trends aren't gonna last out another couple decades.

[minionofmidas]

Definitely helps the Republicans more, unless the increasing populations in the southern and western states changes their political dynamics as well.

It does... (though not necessarily and everywhere in the Dems' favor). the thing is though that that's a constant process while the reapportionment is done only once every ten years, and after the fact - ie, the end-of-decade elections' EV distribution is biased towards whoever wins the people- bleeding states (which currently is the Democrats.)

This won't hold.  Eventually, economic opportunities will open back up in the old industrial areas, and with the overall decline in the relative power of the United States, the wealth that has fueled the idiotic and wasteful economic policies of the last 20 years, ie suburban sprawl, will reverse themselves.  People will tend back towards places where there is already a solid infrastructure in place, and where cities are actually, your know, cities.  This will favor the Northeast.

You can't extend a pattern indefinitely into the future. Rather than a simple reversal though, we should look out for a whole new pattern to emerge at some point.

Well, anything I say is going to have a Hell of a lot to do with circumstance, but you take my point, which is that the current trends aren't gonna last out another couple decades.

I don't need to take that point - I already have it.

[muon2]

My projections based on the 2007 population estimates were on this thread.

In summary:
AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

I'll be updating this at the end of the year when the July 2008 numbers are available.

[jimrtex]

Abs R  - This would be the representation if fractional representatives were apportioned.  Another way to interpret it is that Wisconsin will be a very solid 8 seats in 2010, while Pennsylvania will be very close to being midway between 17 and 18.

Change - Change in fractional representatives between 2000 and 2010.  For example, Wisconsin lost about 0.3 representatives.  In 2000 it had been entitled to about 8.3.  Its drop to substantially below 8.5 resulted in its loss of its 9th seat in 2000.

Est - Estimated whole number of seats in 2010.  The integer portion of the Abs R, adds up to
413, so an additional 22 seats has to be doled out to get to 435 seats.  This is done on a relative basis, so that Texas with an absolute entitlement to 35.259 seats is relatively closer to 36, than several other states with a larger fraction.

% Ch - Projected change in population 2000 to 2010.  States gaining faster than the national average of 10.1% will gain representation.

%  Marg.  If negative, percentage drop that would cause the state to lose its final representative, or gain an additional representative.  For example, if Wisconsin lost 7.2% of its population it would lose its 8th seat.  This would imply a net change in its population during the decade of -1.0%, so unless the Census Bureau really botched its estimates, Wisconsin will retain its 8th seat.  On the other hand, if Texas were to only increase by 20.2% rather than 20.7%, it would only gain 3 seats.   States with small negative numbers can be thought as being on the bubble.

If positive, percentage increase that would cause the state to increase its representation by one (either gaining a seat, or not losing as many).  States with small positive numbers can be thought as being hopeful.

States that are close: Minnesota, no change, but just barely; Oregon, +1, just barely; and Texas +4, just barely.  Missouri, -1, but just barely; New York, -2, but just barely, South Carorlina, no change, but almost +1; and Washington, no change, but almost +1.


State                 Abs R   Change  Est   % Ch % Marg
Wisconsin             7.990   -0.297   8    6.2%  -7.2%
Connecticut           4.982   -0.294   5    3.9% -10.8%
Utah                  3.982    0.501   4   26.3% -13.3%
Nevada                3.981    0.859   4   41.1% -13.2%
Kansas                3.966   -0.211   4    4.5% -12.9%
New Hampshire         1.952   -0.018   2    9.0% -25.9%
Louisiana             5.942   -0.968   6   -5.4%  -8.5%
Maine                 1.933   -0.096   2    4.6% -25.1%
Hawaii                1.904   -0.031   2    8.3% -23.8%
Wyoming               0.900   -0.011   1    8.2%  87.5%
Tennessee             8.898    0.109   9   11.5%  -5.5%
New Mexico            2.887    0.037   3   11.6% -14.8%
Florida              26.883    2.228  27   20.1%  -2.5%
California           52.692    0.450  53   11.1%  -1.4%
Arizona               9.631    1.702  10   33.9%  -2.4%
Alabama               6.598   -0.279   7    5.6%  -2.6%
West Virginia         2.588   -0.245   3    0.3%  -4.6%
Nebraska              2.569   -0.118   3    5.1%  -3.8%
Rhode Island          1.568   -0.124   2    1.3%  -5.9%
Pennsylvania         17.499   -1.448  18    1.7%  -1.1%
Montana               1.460   -0.018   1    8.6%   2.2%
Oregon                5.455    0.155   6   13.4%  -0.3%
Minnesota             7.449   -0.155   8    7.9%  -0.4%
South Carolina        6.416    0.209   6   13.9%   0.5%
Missouri              8.402   -0.244   8    7.0%   0.3%
Washington            9.397    0.293   9   13.7%   0.3%
Delaware              1.353    0.045   1   14.6%  11.6%
New Jersey           12.321   -0.666  12    4.5%   0.6%
North Carolina       13.283    0.863  13   17.8%   0.8%
Idaho                 2.276    0.219   2   22.5%   9.4%
Texas                35.259    3.096  36   20.7%  -0.4%
Iowa                  4.247   -0.294   4    2.9%   5.2%
South Dakota          1.243   -0.024   1    7.6%  23.3%
Illinois             18.241   -0.920  18    4.8%   0.6%
New York             27.201   -2.071  27    2.3%   0.3%
Michigan             14.185   -1.151  14    1.9%   1.4%
Oklahoma              5.181   -0.164   5    6.7%   5.3%
Georgia              14.176    1.540  14   23.6%   1.4%
Virginia             11.168    0.238  11   12.5%   2.1%
Mississippi           4.158   -0.258   4    3.6%   7.5%
Colorado              7.149    0.495   7   18.4%   4.1%
Ohio                 16.127   -1.390  16    1.4%   1.5%
Alaska                1.108    0.020   1   12.6%  41.8%
Massachusetts         9.100   -0.705   9    2.2%   3.6%
Arkansas              4.090   -0.064   4    8.4%   9.3%
Kentucky              6.070   -0.185   6    6.9%   6.3%
Maryland              8.061   -0.123   8    8.5%   4.6%
Indiana               9.044   -0.347   9    6.1%   4.2%
North Dakota          1.025   -0.085   1   -0.5%  56.8%
Vermont               1.009   -0.055   1    2.8%  60.0%

[Citizen James]

I got this from muon2 a while back, but I made one change. I added 1EV to NC to make the total EV 540. I don't like odd numbers.

Isn't the number of electoral votes fixed at 538?

That is, isn't the House of Reps now fixed at 435 members, then add in 100 senators and 3 EV for DC and you get 538, no?

Sort of.

The number of members of the house is fixed, and senators are 2 per state (plus three electors - or as many electors as the smallest state gets if DC has a population greater than the smallest state - for DC).

The number of Senators is 2 per state.

The main ways this could change are:

1.  Congress changes the number of representatives (which I think is set by statute).
2. A new state is added (which would add 2 senators and thus 2 EV).
3. A fluke in the census leaves the least populous state with 2 representatives (and thus 4 EV), while DC has a larger population and thus gets 4 EV as well (for a total of 539 EV).

I don't consider any of these likely to happen anytime soon.

[J. J.]

My projections based on the 2007 population estimates were on this thread.

In summary:
AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

I'll be updating this at the end of the year when the July 2008 numbers are available.

If this is correct there will probably be 10 EV gain for the GOP and possibly a 20 seat gain in the US House.

[Josh/Devilman88]

My projections based on the 2007 population estimates were on this thread.

In summary:
AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

I'll be updating this at the end of the year when the July 2008 numbers are available.

If this is correct there will probably be 10 EV gain for the GOP and possibly a 20 seat gain in the US House.

Will the EV be updated before 2010 mid-term elections?

[muon2]

My projections based on the 2007 population estimates were on this thread.

In summary:
AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

I'll be updating this at the end of the year when the July 2008 numbers are available.

If this is correct there will probably be 10 EV gain for the GOP and possibly a 20 seat gain in the US House.

Will the EV be updated before 2010 mid-term elections?

No. Though the Census will take place on April 1, 2010, the apportionment results will not be available until the end of Dec. Even then, the Census block data, needed for redistricting, won't be released until late winter/ early spring 2011. Most states will use the data for districts that will be contested in 2012.

[GMantis]

I made a stimulation, projecting the July 2007 figures:

Legend:
>50% Dem -1 seat
>70% Dem -2 seats
>50% GOP +1 seat
>70% GOP +2 seats
>90% GOP +4 seats (only Texas)
In this simulation, the last seats gained were by CA, PA, TX, MN and OR (in this order), while the first states to miss out were NY, WA, MO, SC and IL.

[Psychic Octopus]

It's kinda sad that New York has the same electoral votes as fForida...

But that's where all the New Yorkers retire so it's the same composition!

[tokar]

I like how The South is gaining more EVs, while bigger Northern and Western states lose theirs. Why is that?

1) Cuban immigrants in Florida becoming citizens
2) Mexican immigrants in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California becoming citizens
3) Northerner baby boomers getting old and flocking to warmer southern states...FL (big time), NC, TX, AZ (big time), NM, TX

[Mr. Morden]

I like how The South is gaining more EVs, while bigger Northern and Western states lose theirs. Why is that?

1) Cuban immigrants in Florida becoming citizens
2) Mexican immigrants in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California becoming citizens

I thought apportionment was based on the total number of legal residents, not citizens.  If so, the only people who wouldn't be counted would be illegal aliens.

[muon2]

I like how The South is gaining more EVs, while bigger Northern and Western states lose theirs. Why is that?

1) Cuban immigrants in Florida becoming citizens
2) Mexican immigrants in Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California becoming citizens

I thought apportionment was based on the total number of legal residents, not citizens.  If so, the only people who wouldn't be counted would be illegal aliens.

All people living in the US are counted. According to the Census:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[DownWithTheLeft]

I want to try and get a lot of people I know to write down they have one person in their house so New Jersey loses population, if I reached out to about 100 households it might have some kind of effect if we did a chain thing.

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

I'm not sure the FL will pick up 2 with the current economic situation, but who knows. Florida population growth has been slowing down as of late.

[opebo]

Texas has a good economy?

[Four49]

I thought Florida was supposed to be drowning in salt water by 2040.

Seriously though, redistricting (aka Gerrymandering) is handled by the party in power of each state.  There's arguements on both sides regarding who this will help more, and it's all speculative, but does anyone think the next census will help the Dems solidify their power in the Congress, while at the same time hurt them in the Electoral College?

That would be an interesting scenario.

[Kushahontas]

Texas has a good economy?

indeed. while the entire nation is undoubtedly feeling the hurt from this current economic crisis, our state is actually not doing too bad. my economics professor said that if the nation were thrust into a depression, we would actually be one of the last, if not the last state to be affected

[Psychic Octopus]

Sorry, my prediction is in it.