Alternate US States

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah this project is awesome (which is why I raped this thread with my own electoral maps for previous elections in this hypothetical).

BTW, you could also continue your maps of past elections meanwhile. 1990's and early 2000's maps could be quite interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Erie

Ohio is, with Florida and Texas, the only RL Republican-leaning State to be split. Erie is supposed to be the "liberal" part of the State, and thus is naturally the smallest of the two. Mostly a coastal State (hence its name, from the homonymous lake), Erie concentrates Ohio's most democratic counties. As a result, it reveals to be very solidly democratic, comparable to Pennsylvania in terms of Presidential results. Even though it weighs only 9 EVs, it represents a significative bonus for Obama.
The State's natural capital would be Cleveland, though it's possible to immagine that they could pick a smaller city.

ER county map :


Barack Obama : 1,408,902 (58.98%) => 9 EVs
John McCain : 936,307 (39.20%)
Others : 43,409 (1.82%)


LNPI : +12.52 => solid dem.
This huge score makes Erie even more democratic than Pennsylvania (the new one), even though Obama polls slightly less because of a good performance of others. To give an idea, the RL state more similar to both ER and PA is Connecticut. As a results, it's 9 new EVs which are taken to a lean rep state and become solidly deomcratic. Of course, this only partly compensates for the loss of Allegheny's EVs, but it's a further proof that my redrawing won't benefit too massively to one party. Of course, the remaining 12 EVs of Ohio will be a solid guarantee for Republicans either, so that Ohio's status of "swing State" is totally destroyed. We can now predict that democrats will gain 9 EVs, and Republicans will lose 8.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ohio

Unsurprisingly, the remaining part of Ohio, with its 12 Electoral votes, is staunchly Republican. John McCain wouldn't have any problem to win it, like almost every republican candidate before him. There is not much to add, except repeating that we have "polarized" a State which was considered as a bellwhether.
Columbus would remain the State's capital.

OH county map :


John McCain : 1,741,513 (52.25%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,531,142 (45.94%)
Others : 60,542 (1.82%)


LNPI : -13.58 => solid rep.
Funny to find with Erie/Ohio almost exactly the same dichotomy we found with Pennsylvania/Allegheny. Two solid democratic States and two solid republican States replace a dem-leaning and a rep-leaning State. Each time the LNPI is comprised between +/-11 and +/-14. Anyways, Ohio is nonetheless the most republican of the four, and with a similar LNPI is almost an impossible target for Dems. Not a bad thing however, considering for example that in 2004 Kerry wouldn't have to worry about OH (having already secured ER) and could focus on closer States such as Nevada and Wisconsin. However, the split of Ohio won't entirely compensate for Pennsylvania's. If we make the net gain/loss for those two splits, it results in a gain of 1 EV for Democrats and a gain of 2 for Republicans. Thus, it looks fairly balanced for the moment. BTW, interestingly, the percentage of "others" in 2008 was exactly the same in ER and OH.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Still time to cut California del Sur in 2 or 3, so that you've got real similar EVs.
San Diego and the Mexican frontier; LA; maybe the inner south.

Well, it's true that CS is significantly bigger than most of other States, but I think it makes more sense geographically to keep it united.
On the same subject, I once considered to merge Alaska and Hawaii (as they are the two smallest States), but it would have been a geographical aberration and would have made any local government impossible.

[Antonio the Sixth]

California del Sur and Big Sky could really use better names.

I still accept suggestions.

Can I request that metro atlanta be it's own state? It would be interesting to see who won it in 2008? A growing minority population coupled with conservative white suburbs would make it close for sure.

Well, don't know if it's a good idea. After all, GA had only 13 EVs, which is a bit low for a split. Plus, I'd be unable to precisely define Atlanta metro area, at least not before some research. But if you want, once I have finished my state-byState overview I can do that just for fun.

Indiana

Only five counties are taken away to Indiana : all those which are included in the Chicago Combined Statistical Area, and thus will be included to the Chicago State. However, those five c**nties would reveal to have a big impact on Indiana's politics. They would deprive Obama of his narrow win in this State (even though McCain would only win barely too). In 2000 and 2004, Bush could easily have won by more than 60%. They would also cause Indiana to lose one seat, and thus one EV.
Indianapolis would remain the State's capital.

IN county map :


John McCain : 1,215,161 (50.50%) => 10 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,159,633 (48.19%)
Others : 31,535 (1.31%)


LNPI : -9.57 => likely rep.
Indiana would have difficulties to go democrat, even if very favorable circumstances like 2008. It seems that LaPorte and Porter county played an important role in the 2008 results, so that their loss is a disadvantage for democrats. However, there are a few elements that should lead us to relativize this comment. The RL Indiana's LNPI was 6.23, which means it still was a "likely rep" State. This 3-points trend towards the GOP can thus be considered as quite marginal, and while Obama was lucky to win the State in 2008 and would have been unlucky to loose it in this scenario, it wouldn't changed the Electoral College structure. In a situation of tie Indiana would go republican anywyas, and by comparable margins. Thus, while we have made Indiana even more difficult to carry for democrats, it couldn't help republicans when it's useful, ie in close elections. Plus, let's not forget that with its Nothwestern counties, IN also loses an electoral vote, which means the final result of this modification is a loss of one EV for republicans. Still, with the loss of AY, OH and now IN, Obama's victory in the Electoral College is clearly narrowing...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, I'm quite disappointed to see there is absoutely no comment about the new states themselves, their politics and if they fit with what you expected. IMO, Midwest is a quite interesting region regarding the State borders modifications...

Part of the problem there is that you've essentially gerrymandered the state boundaries, so there are very few surprises. Everything is going as expected.

Gerrymandered ?
Every State change is based on intra-state regions, at least taking into account the State's size. If what you meant is that the new states created are more politically characterized, fair enough, but how to avoid it ? If you had to split NY in two States, wouldn't you do one State with NYC metro and the other with the upstate ? If you choose to split a state in a way which will make two new similar states, then you'd have to gerrymander.
And BTW, I perfectly know it's possible to give a kind of prediction of how the State will go. however, you can only make an aproximative prediction. You can imagine if a stae will be safe dem/rep or if he'll be close, but not precisely how much it will be dem/rep, if it will be more or less democratic than the national margin, etc. For example, I expected Allegheny to be far closer, and Indiana to remain democrat. And even now, would you be able to say precisely if Obama will win California above the national margin ? If Rio Grande will be a democratic stronghold, or just a dem-leaning State ? If you do, then you are far better than me.

To bgwah : you are right indeed, and I will try to correct this as soon as possible, as I realized that it was quite unfair. However, as I saw there, there is also a "central Washington" located between my separation line and yours. The reason why I chose to let central Washington to WA is because I didn't want to make it too small, and to make BS too big in terms of population. Anyways, I now think it is possible to find an arangement about this line. I'll start to work on it later.

And now, let's come back to another State.

Chicago

Corresponding to the biggest extension of Chicago Metropolitan area, CH would obviously be dominated by its homonymous city (and of course capital). This domination would play a determinating role in the State's politics, as the votes coming from Cook County represented half of its total votes in 2008. As a result, CH is an overwhelmingly democratic State, and would have been safe since decades. The 2008 results are pretty similar to those of NY (which isn't surprising considering their demographical similarity), though slightly closer.

CH county map :


Barack Obama : 2,720,995 (66.93%) => 16 EVs
John McCain : 1,296,268 (31.88%)
Others : 48,186 (1.19%)


LNPI : +27.78 => dem stronghold.
Obviously, and all the more that "home State effect" would play even better there, Obama would carry Chicago by an overwhelming margin, getting more than two thirds of the total vote. And obviously again, Cook county would make it impossible for any Republican to carry this State. Just immagine : in a situation of tie in the State, McCain would've carried every single county except Cook, and would be below 60% only in Cook, Will, DeKalb, Lake (IL), LaPorte, Lake (IN) and Kenosha counties. Despite that, Obama would still carry Cook county with 58.69% of the votes. The big question now is how the remaining part of Illinois will vote (perhaps you know that, Vazdul ), in order to determine which party will actually benefit to the split. Indeed, the inclusion of Chicago in Illinois IRL had secured it for democrats, and the separation with the rest of Illinois, while creating this democratic stronghold, may at last give "true" Illinois to the republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Indeed, the States I created are more politically polarized, but how to avoid it ? This political polarization is a direct consequence of demograhic/geographic factors (contrast between NYC and the Upstate, contrast between Philadelphia and Pittsburg's Pennsilvania...). And anyways, how is creating States which are politically coherent "gerrymandering" ? To me, it seems exactly the contrary : trying to avoid mixing areas which have nothing to do which one another, and make States the most homogeneous possible.

But obviously you are right that States have become quite easier to predict than IRL. And to be honest :

You are right about Illinois.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Illinois

An Illinois without Chicago will be a totally different Illinois. Indeed, the loss of its biggest city will let the State with less than one third of its original Representative seats, 6 out of 19. A far less populouss Illinois thus, despite keeping most of its territory : as a result, it becomes smaller than Indiana in terms of population, though remaining bigger in terms of area. Politically, the new Illinois would reveal to be a swing State in 2008, even though as Vazdul pointed out, Obama's win here is only due to a combination of his nationwide margin and the home State effect.
Springfield could remain its capital.

IL county map :


Barack Obama : 958,595 (50.69%) => 8 EVs
John McCain : 897,007 (47.44%)
Others : 35,354 (1.87%)


LNPI : -4.01 => lean rep.
So far, Illinois is the first new State which would go to Obama but by a margin inferior to the national one. As a result, this State is deemed as republican even though Obama won it by an absolute majority. In terms of margin, the RL States more similar to it are Ohio and Florida. Plus, there is a thing which further complicates the analysis of this State : if we assume that home State effect benefits uniformly to the candidate in the entire State, then it means that Obama will doo far more poorly in Illinois (considering that his home State would be Chicago). However, how to estimate home State effect ? It may play more or less well depending to candidates (In 1972 for example, we can consider that it benefitted much more to McGovern than to Nixon). thus, Illinois remains a kind of enigma. Anyways, the result of the split will be a loss of 6 EVs for dems and a gain of 8 for reps.

[Antonio the Sixth]

These new states would also completely change the dynamics of Presidential campaigning. For example, with Illinois being a Republican-leaning state where Obama has a regional advantage, both parties would undoubtedly campaign harder to try to win the state. The true effect of TTL's Illinois' status as a swing state in 2008 and the resulting change of campaign strategy is difficult to determine, but it is entirely feasible for this version of Illinois to be a McCain state.

Well, of course it could have been a McCain State in 2008, but when you look at Obama's campaign strategy in 2008, you precisely notice that it was a quite offensive one, focused on swing or even lean-McCain States (CO, FL, NC, IN...) instead of securing his own dem-leaning States (PA, MN, MI...). So if we assume that he keeps this behaviour (and all the more that the polarization will make the few Swing States left even more important), I'd guess he would have won there.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Sorry for the delay, I'm gonna do Wisconsin today.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wisconsin

The addition of the Western part of Michigan and the removal of Kenosha county from Wisconsin would cause no major change in the State's politics, becoming only slightly more republican. The only important consequence of this modification being to add an Electoral vote to Wisconsin (despite Michigan wouldn't lose any), which could be seen as a good thing for democrats.
Madison would without any doubt remain its capital.

WI county map :


Barack Obama : 1,709,632 (55.95%) => 11 EVs
John McCain : 1,300,431 (42.56%)
Others : 45,555 (1.49%)


LNPI : +6.13 => likely dem.
The change in the State's LNPI, of only 1/2 point toward the GOP, is totally irrelevant. Despite a significative geographic change, the new Wisconsin is pretty much the same of the old Wisconsin. As I said above, the result is that democrats gain one EV. Just for fun's sake, here are the results in the former Michigan peninsula : Obama 51.83%, McCain 46.13%, Others 2.04%.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Michigan

Reciprocally to Wisconsin, the loss of Western Michigan would make what remains just slightly more democrat. The only interesting thing with all this is that, despite losing one third of its territory, the State keeps almost the same population, and the same number of EVs. As a result, the new Michigan is significantly more densely populated.
Lansing would remain its capital.

MI county map :


Barack Obama : 2,794,322 (57.51%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 1,978,992 (40.73%)
Others : 85,890 (1.77%)


LNPI : +9.52 => likely dem.
The change here is even more irrelevant than for Wisconsin (0.34 points toward democrats to be precise), so nothing interesting there. Eventually, the whole Michigan/Wisconsin thing proved to be a mere geographical adjustment without any consequence, except Wisconsin's gain of 1 EV.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I disagree with you about the lack of consequences for the alteration of Michigan and Wisconsin. Wisconsin, already a battleground state in close elections, becomes an even greater battlefield with the addition of the Upper Peninsula, with one more electoral vote at stake to boot. In case you didn't notice, that's a 476 vote margin for Kerry in 2004, and a swing to Bush in 2000.

Michigan, on the other hand, is a Democratic-leaning battleground state that becomes slightly more Democratic with the removal of the Upper Peninsula.

There are also consequences for Congressional races. With these boundaries, Bart Stupak likely represents the new district in Wisconsin, but Michigan still has the same number of districts as in RL. It's likely that Stupak's district would be replaced with a significantly more Republican district in Northern Michigan.

Yes, of course you are right about congressional districts. My comment was mainly aimed to the 2008 Presidential election, for which the change  was pretty irrelevant. As for previous Presidential elections, it would inteed have made WI extremely close in 2000 and 2004 (BTW, I'd be glad if you could add the number of "others" votes in 2000 and 2004, so that we could get the voting percentages and thus the LNPI). However, consider that, in 2000, Wisconsin was already a Bush-leaning State (Gore barely carried it), and to the contrary in 2004 it was already 3 points more democratic than the country. So in terms of EV structure the new Wisconsin is alway in the same category as the old one.

BTW, I guess than when my State-by-State tour will be finished, I will try to draw what the 2002-2012 Congressional districts for the new states could be. Might be interesting.

[Antonio the Sixth]

So for 2004, we have :

Kerry : 49.51%
Bush : 49.50%
Others : 0.99%

LNPI : +2.48 => lean dem
RL Wisconsin's LNPI was +2.84, so it's a 0.36 pts swing toward the GOP


As for 2000 :

Gore : 47.82%
Bush : 47.66%
Others : 4.52%

LNPI : -0.36 => lean rep
RL Wisconsin's LNPI was -0.3, so it's a 0.06 pts swing toward the GOP


Well, as you can see, the change in Wisconsin was even more irrelevant in previous presidential elections. Of course, its relevance was reinforced by Wisonsin's "swing state" status in 2000 and 2004, but in both elections WI eventually kept the same status (repectively lean rep and lean dem.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I've decided to spotlight some interesting elections from past years. I'll start with:

1988 Results for Chicago:
George H. W. Bush (R): 1,614,245 (49.72%)
Michael Dukakis (D): 1,607,587 (49.51%)
Others: 24,852 (0.77%)

What... Bush carried Chicago ?!? How comes ?

Chicago suburbs used to be very Republican, and even Cook county wasn't as overwhelmingly Democratic as it is today. The only counties in Chicago that Dukakis carried were Cook (55.77%), Kenosha (57.72%), and the Lake in Indiana (56.55%), while suburban counties such as DuPage hovered around 70% for Bush.

But the weird thing is that Illinois was quite close at the time (it went to Bush by only 2 points), so if Dukakis is so poor in Chicago, it means he'd poll quite well in the new Illinois. He probably would have lost by a margin inferior to Bush's national margin, which means Alternate Illinois was more democratic in 1988 than in 2008... Very weird.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, Illinois LNPI in 1988 was +3.35, and in 2008 -4.01.

So it means that, contrary to RL Illinois (which trended dem in every single election since 1980), Illinois without Chicago actually had a strong republican trend since 1988. Indeed, probably the general losses of democrats in rural areas can explain this trend.

[Antonio the Sixth]

North Florida

Made of the most conservative parts of Florida (especially in the North-East), NF would be a strongly republican State. McCain wouldn't have problems to retain the State's 12 EVs in 2008, once again diminishing Obama's edge in the Electoral College. However, the inclusion of a large central part of Florida, less overwhelmingly republican, avoids it to become a republican stronghold.
Tallahassee would remain its capital.

NF county map :


John McCain : 1,949,292 (53.00%) => 12 EVs
Barack Obama : 1,689,042 (45.92%)
Others : 39,684 (1.08%)


LNPI : -14.34 => solid rep.
In terms of LNPI, North florida is right between GA (2 pts more dem) and SC (2 pts more rep). Thus, it's a State which fits quite well with his geographical location, ie what we could call the "coastal deep South", contrary to RL Florida which was a quite unique State in the South. Solidly republican like its neighbours, it would therefore had deprived Obama of its 12 Electoral Votes. However, as Florida was in 2008 (and actually in every election since 1980) more republican than the national margin, it's now almost certain that the split would favor the democrats. With as similar margin, NF has probably taken enough McCain votes to give South Florida and its 17 votes to democrats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bump. I'll do SF on either wednesday or thursday, then I think I'll stop this for a while (I haven't enough courage to start with the Texas split...). I however encourage you if you are willing to work on annex subjects, as did Vazdul or once Mechman.

[Antonio the Sixth]

All right, so I'll go with the last State I have done. After this one, I won't be able to give you anything new for a while.

South Florida

South Florida would be centered on the big metropolitan areas of Miami (in the South) and Tampa (in the State's northwest), which are heavily democratic. Thus, it's not surprising to see it leaning Dem. Maybe the biggest surprise is the relative weakness of this lean : barely more than IRL Pennsylvania (or MN if you want to take the example of a State that remains the same in this scenario). Perhaps that helps to see that Florida overall remains a strongly Republican State, and that big coastal cities aren't that strong compared to the inland. Still, the fact Obama would win it by 10 points in 2008 is certainly positive for democrats, who would have 17 EVs easily secured.

SF county map :


Barack Obama : 2,593,325 (54.78%) => 17 EVs
John McCain : 2,096,927 (44.30%)
Others : 43,591 (0.92%)


LNPI : +3.22 => lean dem.
As said before, SF is only slightly democrat, and Republicans could stand a fair chance there in neutral political conditions. We could see Bush winning it in 2004 (though my personal guess is that he lost it). But when we go one election earlier, the Florida split becomes a very good deal for Democrats : with his strong standing in Florida, there is no doubt that Gore would win SF handily. That would certainly be enough to almost entirely correct the democrats' structural deficit that cost them the 2000 election. To get back on 2008, we can see a weird thing there : we had a State with 27 Electoral Votes with leaned rep, and once we split it we find a dem leaning 17-EV State and a strongly republican 12-EV State. To put it clearly, the majority of Floridans are republicans but under this split a majority of the State's EVs would go to democrats... Vazdul once said that I was "gerrymandering" States : well, the Florida split is probably what comes closer to a gerrymandering among what I've done. Of course, I still persist in thinking that this split is the best that could be done under demographic criteria. The main problem is that Florida is made of a very conservative and sparsely populated region (NF) and a heavily populated liberal leaning region (SF) which gives a conservative leaning State overall. Separing the two regions makes sense, even though it's far from being a neutral move politically. Thus, we consider the Florida split to bring 17 EVs to the democrat and take 15 to the Republicans.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Yeah, I ought to continue this some day.

Texas will be long to do, though.

Also, as soon as possible I'll try to give you the 2010 apportionment numbers, since the current list is for 2000.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Oh damn, I think you guys are being a bit too optimistic there... I'll do my best but I really can't tell you how soon you will have it updated... You know, I've so many things to do (Senate business could take a lot of time for example )...

I really don't want to disappoint you, and I will do my best not to. But please don't expect too much too soon.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I feel like NOVA would split from Virginia as well and possibly be it's own state.

You're right, that's something worth thinking about. Otherwise, why not giving it to Maryland along with DC ?

You could incorporate it into DC and make DC it's own state as well. Maryland doesn't need it.

Isn't DC basically part of the metro area that also includes Baltimore and all ? Reuniting them makes sense IMO.