Talk Elections

Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion => Presidential Election Trends => Topic started by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 17, 2006, 12:27:01 AM



Title: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 17, 2006, 12:27:01 AM
What states do you see losing/gaining Electoral Votes for 2012?  Any losing/gaining a significant amount (3 or more either way)?


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Lincoln Republican on July 18, 2006, 12:59:55 PM
No state losing or gaining 3 or 4 electoral votes.  That's a big shift.

Possiblities:

California and Texas picking up 1 or 2 electoral votes each. 

New York losing 1 electoral vote.

Arizona picking up 1 electoral vote.

Michigan and Pennsylvania losing 1 electoral vote each.

Florida picking up 1 electoral vote.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: MaC on July 18, 2006, 02:37:45 PM
Ohio and New York's said to lose two (by muon2)


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: WMS on July 18, 2006, 04:50:59 PM
I'll take care of this question. ;)

Paging muon2 and jimrtex, paging muon2 and jimrtex...


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on July 18, 2006, 10:40:33 PM
If I may be of service ...

Every year in late December the Census Bureau releases estimates for the population of all states. I've created a spreadsheet to take those estimates each year and project the changes to apportionment after the next census. It resulted in this thread (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=33630.0) last time.

The bottom line changes I derived were:
AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: ATFFL on July 18, 2006, 10:55:58 PM
Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: AkSaber on July 19, 2006, 12:16:23 AM
Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jacob_101 on July 19, 2006, 12:56:05 PM
Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

That is why Dems need to focus more on the regions that are actually growing. The more they try the Kerry strategy of focusing too hard on one state, the mroe lopsided future elections will be.

Because the election was so close, Kerry had to focus on a handful of states.  Only a handful were in "play".  It wouldn't make much sense for him to focus on fast growing states like Arizona and Texas, where Republicans had sizeable wins.

Ohio and Florida were his only real chances of winning.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 20, 2006, 07:44:52 AM
Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

That is why Dems need to focus more on the regions that are actually growing. The more they try the Kerry strategy of focusing too hard on one state, the mroe lopsided future elections will be.

Because the election was so close, Kerry had to focus on a handful of states.  Only a handful were in "play".  It wouldn't make much sense for him to focus on fast growing states like Arizona and Texas, where Republicans had sizeable wins.

Ohio and Florida were his only real chances of winning.

I believe if Kerry had more states in play, we may have been talking about the 1st Mid-Term of the Kerry Administration and Kerry's re-election.  As it is, Bush won by a fairly sizeable margin as compared to 2000.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Tender Branson on July 21, 2006, 07:57:33 AM
The fast growing Republican states will gain most. We´ll have to see what the next census shows, but anyway it will be much the same like last time i suppose. Arizona, Nevada, Florida, Georgia, Texas, Colorado,  North Carolina. Additionally Utah and Virginia may gain one. California will get some, maybe Washington too. New England and the Midwest are losing.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Sam Spade on July 21, 2006, 01:59:30 PM
Texas and Florida are the most likely candidates to gain +3.

2008 should be the last election where Ohio holds the all-important stateswing status it's held since 1896 (before that, it was New York).

After that, it'll be Florida, most likely.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 26, 2006, 12:15:26 AM
You muon, check out my 2030 map in the Poltical Demographics board.  I'd like to see what you think.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 28, 2006, 08:11:10 PM
I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

(
)


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 29, 2006, 08:02:03 AM
I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

(
)

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Tender Branson on July 29, 2006, 10:18:05 AM
I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

(
)

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.

Wouldn´t Oregon get an 8th then ? Oregon has a higher population than Oklahoma now and it´s growing far faster than Oklahoma.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 29, 2006, 11:14:28 AM
I decided to draw up a map for this too...

Blue=gain/Red=loss

+-3=90%
+-2=70%
+-1=50%

(
)

I like that map, but I would make a slight change.

At the rate Oklahoma City is growing, and we are growing very rapidly, with the rest of the state not doing too bad either, I wouldn't be suprised if Oklahoma is given its 8th electoral vote back and take one away from Texas' gains.  I think we were wrongly robbed of our 8th electoral vote in the last census, so I think we'll get it back.

Wouldn´t Oregon get an 8th then ? Oregon has a higher population than Oklahoma now and it´s growing far faster than Oklahoma.

Okay, give both Oregon and Oklahoma an 8th and take one away from Texas and California.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on July 29, 2006, 05:34:19 PM
OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 29, 2006, 07:16:46 PM
OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Alcon on July 29, 2006, 07:48:35 PM
I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I'm afraid that virtually all of the states you mentioned are pretty out of play.  California may have a ton of electoral votes, but it's more competitive than Oklahoma, and it was paid very little attention in 2004.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 29, 2006, 09:52:08 PM
OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

The issue is that those states for the most part DON'T have closely divided electorates.  On top of that they contain a fairly insignificant number of electors.

Going after states that can swing huge portions of the College is much more important.

However, if electors were given out proportionally then the story would be MUCH different.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on July 30, 2006, 02:59:41 AM
OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I hope you didn't interpret my post as in anyway demeaning OK. My post was a purely mathematical exercise using current Census estimates to predict the next round of reapportionment. Note that MN was the next most likely to gain a seat, and it isn't really a big state either.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Joe Biden 2020 on July 30, 2006, 05:37:12 PM
OK is very unlikely to gain a seat back in 2010. The average growth rate in the US is about 1.0% per year. OK is estimated to have an overall growth rate of 0.5% per year. OK would need about 275,000 additional people beyond the current estimates to get close to another seat. Okla City may be growing well, but the rest of the state is way behind the nation in growth.

OR is growing at 1.2% per year, slightly faster than the national average. That puts it in line to get a seat after 2020, not after 2010. OR needs about 60,000 more people than expected to show up in the next five years to get a seat sooner.

The states closest to an extra seat are all projected losers that would avoid the loss: MN, MI, NY (lose 1 instead of 2), IL.  The states most at risk to come up short: FL (gain 2 instead of 3), AZ (gain 1 instead of 2), CA, PA (losing 2 instead of 1), and AL (depending on the long term effects of Katrina).

I just hope no single person in this entire country considers Oklahoma to be secondary or inferior to "the big states" such as California, Texas, New York, Florida, etc.  We may only have 7 EV's, but, especially in a closely divided electorate, all 7 EVs are just as important than California's 55 EVs or Texas' 34, etc.  The same goes for really small states such as Wyoming, the Dakotas, Montana, etc.  They only have 3, but all 3 are extremely vital to each candidate.

I hope you didn't interpret my post as in anyway demeaning OK. My post was a purely mathematical exercise using current Census estimates to predict the next round of reapportionment. Note that MN was the next most likely to gain a seat, and it isn't really a big state either.

muon,

I didn't think you were demeaning Oklahoma, it just seems a lot of people do think California is more important than Oklahoma, maybe not so much on this forum, but a lot of other people.

I guess as long as Oklahoma never goes down to 6 we'll be okay.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on July 31, 2006, 12:59:06 AM
Is Illinois suppose to lose a seat next time?  Will Arkansas ever have a chance at gaining a seat?

IL is on the bubble to lose a seat after the 2010 census. It's only been growing at 0.5%/yr compared to the national average of 1.0%/yr. IL would need about 125K more population (out of about 13 M) to retain its 19th seat.

AR is unlikely to see a gain or a loss. It's at the almost ideal population for its four seats, and it is growing slightly slower than average (0.7%/yr). Even the current projections out to 2030 show no significant change relative to the nation as a whole.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on July 31, 2006, 09:05:21 AM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 31, 2006, 02:32:13 PM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on July 31, 2006, 03:07:01 PM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.

Bad state?


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: MasterJedi on July 31, 2006, 04:34:30 PM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.

Bad state?

He's a far left liberal crazy who thinks anybody in Southern states is evil. Ignore the evil.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jerusalemcar5 on July 31, 2006, 05:00:09 PM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.

Bad state?

He's a far left liberal crazy who thinks anybody in Southern states is evil. Ignore the evil.

That is not my view in the slightest and you know that.  I don't think the states are "evil" let alone the people.  I didn't even mention the people.

Simply, I don't like the politics, history, or current society of North Carolina.  I believe Georgia has made more strides in entering the mainstream of America, while North Carolina has not.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on July 31, 2006, 09:19:57 PM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.

Bad state?

He's a far left liberal crazy who thinks anybody in Southern states is evil. Ignore the evil.

That is not my view in the slightest and you know that.  I don't think the states are "evil" let alone the people.  I didn't even mention the people.

Simply, I don't like the politics, history, or current society of North Carolina.  I believe Georgia has made more strides in entering the mainstream of America, while North Carolina has not.

Why don't you like the history of North Carolina?

BTW Georgia is more consveriative then North Carolina.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: ATFFL on August 06, 2006, 11:05:37 AM
The influx of upper income Republicans into suburban Atlanta is pushing Georgia further into the Republican column while the Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill and Charlotte suburbs are shifting leftward. North Carolina's political future is very similar to that of neighboring Virginia.

In a way, we are there already.  Dems can be very competitive on the state level, but the national tickets are usually out of line with the state.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Padfoot on December 07, 2006, 01:13:44 AM
Applying Muon's numbers to 2004, we get:

Bush: 292
Kerry: 245.

Meaningless, but interesting.

Don't even need Ohio to win, anymore.

That is why Dems need to focus more on the regions that are actually growing. The more they try the Kerry strategy of focusing too hard on one state, the mroe lopsided future elections will be.

Because the election was so close, Kerry had to focus on a handful of states.  Only a handful were in "play".  It wouldn't make much sense for him to focus on fast growing states like Arizona and Texas, where Republicans had sizeable wins.

Ohio and Florida were his only real chances of winning.

I believe if Kerry had more states in play, we may have been talking about the 1st Mid-Term of the Kerry Administration and Kerry's re-election.  As it is, Bush won by a fairly sizeable margin as compared to 2000.

I know its been forever since anyone commented on this thread but I think Kerry had more states in play than you guys realize.  If Kerry had focused on the Mountain West + Iowa rather than Ohio and Florida he could have won.  He lost Iowa and New Mexico by less than a percentage point.  And he lost Nevada and Colorado by 2.5 and 4.5 respectively.  Although larger margins than Ohio both are smaller than Florida's margin.  Also, Kerry made significant gains over Gore's performance in both Colorado and Nevada so I'm sure he could have pushed these closer had he paid more attention to them and less to Florida where he actually lost ground compared to Gore.  If Kerry had taken NM, IA, CO, and NV he would have won.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Verily on December 07, 2006, 01:17:07 PM
Aside from Ohio and New Hampshire, Colorado was the only competitive state to swing to the Dems in 2004 despite Kerry declining nationwide from Gore's level. (Not including states like Minnesota where Nader's vote was particularly high in 2000.) It will be very competitive in 2008, Kerry having lost it by only 4.5%.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Padfoot on December 07, 2006, 05:48:11 PM
I'm just trying to point out that the Mountain West is more competitive than people realize and it is the fastest growing region in the US which means thats where the electoral votes will be heading in 2012.  I also think Texas will be much more competitive in 2008 even.  Although it has a definate Republican lean, Clinton managed 44% there in 1996 when he was up against a non-Texan.  The dramatic increase in the Hispanic population since then plus the GOP's hardline immigration stance, and the fact that there won't be a Texas Republican on the ballot may drive this state into much more competitive territory than it has been in recent years.  I would have to say that this would be a big slap in the face to Bush on his way out though.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Verily on December 09, 2006, 05:00:26 PM
I'm just trying to point out that the Mountain West is more competitive than people realize and it is the fastest growing region in the US which means thats where the electoral votes will be heading in 2012.  I also think Texas will be much more competitive in 2008 even.  Although it has a definate Republican lean, Clinton managed 44% there in 1996 when he was up against a non-Texan.  The dramatic increase in the Hispanic population since then plus the GOP's hardline immigration stance, and the fact that there won't be a Texas Republican on the ballot may drive this state into much more competitive territory than it has been in recent years.  I would have to say that this would be a big slap in the face to Bush on his way out though.

Clinton was also from the South and won the last vestiges of Dixiecrat-ism still present in the South. The influx of Hispanics will be countered by continuing disillusionment (especially in immigration-hostile white Texas) of those voters against the Democratic Party. Of course, in truth, neither party really presents the position they want (reduced free trade, reduced immigration), but immigration will seem the more pressing problem to the "common American" of Texas. (This contrasts with, say, Virginia and North Carolina, where free trade is considered the bigger enemy of the "common American".)


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jimrtex on December 22, 2006, 07:19:38 AM
If I may be of service ...

The bottom line changes I derived were:
AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1
Based on the Census Bureau estimate for July 1, 2006:

TX +4
FL +2

Texas gains the 435th seat, with Florida dropping to 438, on slightly decreased growth rate.  Minnesota remained 436th.

430 Arizona (-4, was 434 before)
431 Alabama (0)
432 Pennsylvania (0)
433 New Jersey (+4)
434 California (+1)
435 Texas (+?)

436 Minnesota (0)
437 New York (-1)
438 Florida (+3)
439 Oregon (-5)
440 Washington (-3)


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Jake on January 24, 2007, 08:35:56 PM
Any estimates for 2020 by any chance? Just a rough guess would be interesting.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on January 26, 2007, 12:04:04 PM
Any estimates for 2020 by any chance? Just a rough guess would be interesting.

In 2005 the Census Bureau released projections for state populations through 2030. Based on those projections for 2020 the EV map would be as follows:

(
)


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Josh/Devilman88 on February 04, 2007, 04:30:09 PM
Any estimates for 2020 by any chance? Just a rough guess would be interesting.

In 2005 the Census Bureau released projections for state populations through 2030. Based on those projections for 2020 the EV map would be as follows:

(
)


How did you get that?


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: muon2 on February 10, 2007, 08:20:47 PM
Any estimates for 2020 by any chance? Just a rough guess would be interesting.

In 2005 the Census Bureau released projections for state populations through 2030. Based on those projections for 2020 the EV map would be as follows:

(
)


How did you get that?

The Census Bureau projections (http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/projectionsagesex.html) page was my source for the data (I used table A1.) Then I processed those numbers on a spreadsheet using the standard apportionment method (http://www.physics.niu.edu/~fortner/maps/Alt%20House%202010/US_2010.htm). The map was generated using the Atlas.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Aizen on March 02, 2007, 05:00:35 PM
Aside from Ohio and New Hampshire, Colorado was the only competitive state to swing to the Dems in 2004 despite Kerry declining nationwide from Gore's level. (Not including states like Minnesota where Nader's vote was particularly high in 2000.) It will be very competitive in 2008, Kerry having lost it by only 4.5%.

Yeah, considering the Democrats took control of the house and the governor's office in 2006. I can certainly vouch for Colorado being a competitive state in 2008.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: ilikeverin on March 02, 2007, 05:57:49 PM

Hmm, seeing that Minnesota is projected to lose an EV in 2010, when does it gain one back?


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Verily on March 02, 2007, 08:34:43 PM
Assuming that other states continue to slow faster than Minnesota, Minnesota would gain its lost district back in 2020 as states like New York continue to decline.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: jimrtex on March 03, 2007, 11:00:50 PM
Hmm, seeing that Minnesota is projected to lose an EV in 2010, when does it gain one back?
Different population data.

The map for 2020 is based on census projections, in particular an interim projection made in 2004 based on 2000 data.  It assumes that trends in death rates, fertility rates, migration rates, etc. will continue indefinitely into the future.  So for example, they will take the 2000 population of a state and estimate based on the age distribution of females and the age-based fertility rate how many babies will be born.  Similarly it estimates the number of deaths per age, and so on for migration, both interstate and international.

In 2000, Minnesota was entitled to 7.62 representatives.  The projection data showed Minnesota growing at almost the same rate as the country did over the next 30 years and staying around 7.62 representatives.

The apportionment estimate for 2010 was based on census estimates (the latest is for July 2006), with the annual growth rate for 2000 to 2006, projected forward to 2010.

The 2005 estimated population for Minnesota was 0.9% less than the 2005 projected population for Minnesota.  Put in other terms, the projection had Minnesota growing a 0.51% annually, while the estimate has it growing 0.42% annually.  The difference over 5 years is 48,000 people.

Meanwhile the 2005 estimated population for the USA was 0.3% greater than the 2005 projected population.  This produces an additional decrease in the relative share of the population for Minnesota.  If trends based on the estimates continue, Minnesota will be entitled to around 7.44 representatives in 2010.   7.44/7.62 is 97%, so the relative share decline is small.  But since Minnesota is crossing a rounding threshold it may lose the 8th seat.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Aizen on March 15, 2007, 12:16:44 AM
Nevada is the fastest growing state followed by Arizona. What's funny is that North Dakota is actually losing people. They lost 5,500 people between 2000 and 2005.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: °Leprechaun on March 16, 2007, 01:54:35 PM
If the electoral college favors a Republican win, how much will that be a factor in attempts to abolish it? In other words if it becomes more and more likely that whenever a Democrat wins the popular vote in close elections s/he is unlikely to win the electoral college, will not such results tend to lead to an abolishment of the electoral college?

Of course, the problem is, that the more the electoral college favors the Republicans, it is possible that it also be easier for them to gain control of Congress. It is virtually impossible to change or abolish the electoral college without both parties help.


Title: Re: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes
Post by: Jaggerjack on April 30, 2007, 09:37:53 AM
What about GA and NC they? Are they right on the line of gaining one more seat?

If you look, Georgia is getting one, I doubt they are close to second.

North Carolina hopefully isn't that close.  Bad state-doesn't deserve that many electors.

Bad state?

He's a far left liberal crazy who thinks anybody in Southern states is evil. Ignore the evil.

That is not my view in the slightest and you know that.  I don't think the states are "evil" let alone the people.  I didn't even mention the people.

Simply, I don't like the politics, history, or current society of North Carolina.  I believe Georgia has made more strides in entering the mainstream of America, while North Carolina has not.

Why don't you like the history of North Carolina?

BTW Georgia is more consveriative then North Carolina.
Dude, isn't it obvious he doesn't care about how conservative they are?