Prospective electoral vote allocation for the next decade (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
May 17, 2024, 02:48:56 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Prospective electoral vote allocation for the next decade (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Prospective electoral vote allocation for the next decade  (Read 1718 times)
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,264
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« on: March 14, 2015, 01:48:38 PM »

I really hope that map hold, as the balance doesn't seem as bad for Democratic States as the last 5 reapportionments were. It would be fantastic to see NY finally stop the bleeding. CO, VA, NC, WV and AL would also be great news.


The seats aren't apportioned by remainders. The geometric mean (Huntington-Hill) is used instead, and that tends to help smaller states on the bubble.

I've never heard of it before. I did the calculations "by instinct".
And as we all know that Wyoming and Vermont are waaay too underrepresented in the Electoral College, a method that helps smaller states "on the bubble" is much-needed... Roll Eyes

The method of remainders results in some well known paradoxes, such as where the number of seats is increased but an individual state's share goes down. Huntington-Hill avoids that paradox and minimizes the percentage differences between the populations of the districts.

The best method is Webster's IMO (known as D'Hondt Method in Europe). Divisors of 0.5, 1.5, 2.5 etc.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,264
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #1 on: March 19, 2015, 06:39:10 AM »

Can anyone explain to me the changes in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Alabama*? They don't make any sense to me.

Why wouldn't they make sense? All these States have seen below-average growth rates for at least 50 years.
Logged
Antonio the Sixth
Antonio V
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,264
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.87, S: -3.83

P P
« Reply #2 on: March 19, 2015, 07:59:49 AM »

Can anyone explain to me the changes in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Alabama*? They don't make any sense to me.

Why wouldn't they make sense? All these States have seen below-average growth rates for at least 50 years.

Yes, but why have they been growing so slowly?

Because they are located in regions people are moving away from. The Northeast, Midwest and inner South all have undergone  a significant emigration, to the advantages of the Sun Belt States.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.024 seconds with 10 queries.