100 Senate Seats by population

[ElectionsGuy]

I thought it would be cool to experiment what would happen if there's 100 Senate seats, but instead of 2 guaranteed by statehood and nothing else, it was decided by population. Still, there needs to be 1 per state, and because of this 24 states only have 1, but the rest have 2 or more, and California has 10. I'll draw the 26 states' districts for Senate (you all can help me as well), state how they voted in 2008, and they're hypothetical 'rating' for 2016. When we're done, we can see how the Senate might be different, and how the electoral college would be different using this system.

Since 25 of the states are already 'done' per say, here are my ratings for 2016. No need to state how they voted in 2008.

Safe R

Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Utah, West Virginia, and Wyoming.

Toss-Up

Iowa and New Hampshire.

Lean D

Nevada

Likely D

Maine, New Mexico, and Oregon.

Safe D

Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

Edit - Modified based on jimrtex's map

[ElectionsGuy]

Minnesota



1: 59.2% Obama, 38.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 49.0% McCain, 48.6% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R

[ElectionsGuy]

Wisconsin



1: 53.8% Obama, 44.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean D

2. 58.7% Obama, 39.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

These ratings were actually pretty tough, because most of the swing from 2008 to 2012 occured in the 2nd district's rural areas. Milwaukee County is 1/3 of the 1st's population, and it actually swung slightly Obama in 2012. Its a pretty polarized and inelastic district so I decided to keep the first Lean D by default, but someone like Ron Johnson could certainly win it. The 2nd I think will always maintain a strong Democratic presence because of Madison, so I think Likely D is an appropriate rating. In 2012, the 1st probably went 51-52% Obama and the 2nd probably went 54-55% Obama.

[ElectionsGuy]

^ Very nice

Missouri



1: 52.9% Obama, 45.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 53.1% McCain, 45.5% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

For MO-01, the areas in the district outside the St Louis core swung hard R in 2012, and they have been for several elections besides 2008. For that reason, and because I expect a Republican to perform better than 2016 than in 2012, I rated in Lean R. It was probably a dead even game in 2012, and Claire McCaskill could keep the district in her favor if she wanted to.

[ElectionsGuy]

Massachusetts



1: 60.2% Obama, 37.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 64.0% Obama, 34.4% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

[ElectionsGuy]

Maryland



1: 68.2% Obama, 30.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 56.1% Obama, 42.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

[ElectionsGuy]

Tennessee



1: 49.8% McCain, 49.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 64.4% McCain, 34.1% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

The first district is surprisingly competitive as Nashville and Memphis are in the same district, but it'll only vote D in a wave year or if someone like Jim Cooper runs and gets enough rural white votes.

[ElectionsGuy]

Indiana



1: 50.8% Obama, 48.1% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely R

2: 49.8% McCain, 49.2% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

[ElectionsGuy]

Arizona



1: 53.1% McCain, 45.8% Obama
2016 Rating: Lean R

2: 54.2% McCain, 44.5% Obama
2016 Rating: Likely R

I think the 1st actually would've swung D, since AZ-7 was the hardest D swing in the country anywhere in 2012. And, as the metro grows, I expect (but am not very sure of) it to vote less R, so Lean R for that one.

[ElectionsGuy]

Maryland



1: 68.2% Obama, 30.7% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 56.1% Obama, 42.5% McCain
2016 Rating: Likely D

If DC (with the exception of a core federal district) was retroceded back to Maryland, how would that change this map?  

It would still have 2 districts, but district 2 would probably get more of Carroll, Prince George's, and Charles County, while DC would go to 1 under my scenario.

[ElectionsGuy]

rpryor, if you uncheck the box at the top that says 'vote dist lines' we can see the districts a lot better.

You might want to compare with the state plans constructed in this thread from 2014.

You should also say what is the limit on population inequality from the quota (exact, 0.5%, 5%), and under what conditions counties may be chopped for your version of this experiment.

For the quota, I would prefer a very small one, under 5000 usually (though I usually am under 1000), and I would be pretty loose on county chops. Ideally, there should be no county chops but if it fits with the shape and region of the district its fine.

[ElectionsGuy]

Colorado



1: 62.5% Obama, 35.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Safe D

2: 53.5% McCain, 44.9% Obama
2016 Rating: Safe R

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[ElectionsGuy]

Washington



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

2: 50.1% Obama, 47.9% McCain
2016 Rating: Toss-Up

[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.

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[ElectionsGuy]

I have Florida, New York, and Texas ready. Anybody want to call California?

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[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

[ElectionsGuy]

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

[ElectionsGuy]

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.

[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.

[ElectionsGuy]

Republican Primary Results (in order to see these, you're probably going to have to copy the link inside the img tag and enter into a new tab)

Trump (67)

AL
AR
AZ-01
AZ-02
CA-01
CA-02
CA-03
CA-04
CA-05
CA-06
CA-07
CA-08
CA-09
CA-10
CT
DE
FL-01
FL-02
FL-03
FL-05
GA-02
GA-03
HI
IL-02
IL-03
IN-01
IN-02
KY
LA
MD-01
MD-02
MI-02
MI-03
MA-01
MA-02
MS
MO-01
MT
NE
NV
NH
NJ-01
NJ-02
NJ-03
NM
NY-01
NY-02
NY-03
NY-04
NY-05
NC-01
NC-03
OR
PA-01
PA-02
PA-03
PA-04
RI
SC
SD
TN-01
TN-02
VT
VA-02
WA-01
WA-02
WV

Cruz (21)

AK
CO-01
CO-02
ID
IA
KS
ME
MO-02
NC-02
ND
OK
TX-01
TX-02
TX-03
TX-04
TX-05
TX-06
TX-07
UT
WI-01
WY

Rubio (3)

GA-01
MN-01
VA-01

Kasich (3)

OH-01
OH-02
OH-03

Unsure (6)

FL-04 (Guess: Trump)
IL-01 (Guess: Trump)
IL-04 (Guess: Trump)
MI-01 (Guess: Trump)
MN-02 (Guess: Cruz)
WI-02 (Guess: Trump)

[ElectionsGuy]

Democratic Primary Results

Clinton (55)

AL
AZ-01
AZ-02
AR
CT
DE
FL-01
FL-02
FL-03
FL-04
FL-05
GA-01
GA-02
GA-03
IA
IL-02
KY
LA
MD-01
MD-02
MA-02
MI-02
MI-03
MS
MO-01
NV
NJ-01
NJ-02
NJ-03
NM
NY-01
NY-02
NY-03
NC-01
NC-02
NC-03
OH-01
OH-02
OH-03
PA-01
PA-02
PA-03
SC
SD
TN-01
TN-02
TX-01
TX-02
TX-03
TX-04
TX-05
TX-06
TX-07
VA-01
VA-02

Sanders (31)

AK
CO-01
CO-02
HI
ID
IL-01
IL-04
IN-01
KS
ME
MA-01
MI-01
MN-01
MN-02
MO-02
MT
NE
NH
NY-05
ND
OK
OR
RI
UT
VT
WA-01
WA-02
WV
WI-01
WI-02
WY

Unsure (4)

IL-03 (Guess: Sanders)
IN-02 (Guess: Sanders)
NY-04 (Guess: Sanders)
PA-04 (Guess: Sanders)

Not making any guesses about California since Torie's districts aren't labeled and vote hasn't been finalized.