D.C.'s 4th EV

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

When would the District of Columbia theoretically get its fourth electoral vote based only on its own population?
Do you think Amendment XXIII will be changed by then?

And for the mapping fetishists: What would the congressional districts look like?

[Nyvin]

When both Wyoming and Vermont get a 4th I think.

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

When both Wyoming and Vermont get a 4th I think.

You misunderstood my question.

[mileslunn]

Constitution specifically states DC cannot have more EVs than any state so unless its get amended and doubt that will happen any time soon.  As long as GOP controls both houses and both legislatures they are not going to want to give the Democrats an extra electoral vote.  Now if the Democrats control both houses and are at some point able to gain control of 3/4 of state legislatures (highly unlikely) then it might be possible. 

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

Constitution specifically states DC cannot have more EVs than any state so unless its get amended and doubt that will happen any time soon.  As long as GOP controls both houses and both legislatures they are not going to want to give the Democrats an extra electoral vote.  Now if the Democrats control both houses and are at some point able to gain control of 3/4 of state legislatures (highly unlikely) then it might be possible. 

That's why put the theoretically into the question.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

While that clause did cost DC an EV in the elections before 1984, it's meaningless now unless the size of the House were to be considerably expanded. The district is fully developed now and there's no reasonable prospect that Congress would ever allow changes to the building codes which would allow high-rises to obscure the Capitol or the Mall. Max population for the district is probably 1,000,000 which won't ever be enough for two representatives unless we start seeing major population declines and/or a massive increase in the size of the House. (Even with a cube-root House size, DC would still only get one.)

[Anzeigenhauptmeister]

While that clause did cost DC an EV in the elections before 1984, it's meaningless now unless the size of the House were to be considerably expanded. The district is fully developed now and there's no reasonable prospect that Congress would ever allow changes to the building codes which would allow high-rises to obscure the Capitol or the Mall. Max population for the district is probably 1,000,000 which won't ever be enough for two representatives unless we start seeing major population declines and/or a massive increase in the size of the House. (Even with a cube-root House size, DC would still only get one.)

You're saying, till 1980 D.C. ought to have had 4 EV, and it basically "lost" one since then?

[jimrtex]

While that clause did cost DC an EV in the elections before 1984, it's meaningless now unless the size of the House were to be considerably expanded. The district is fully developed now and there's no reasonable prospect that Congress would ever allow changes to the building codes which would allow high-rises to obscure the Capitol or the Mall. Max population for the district is probably 1,000,000 which won't ever be enough for two representatives unless we start seeing major population declines and/or a massive increase in the size of the House. (Even with a cube-root House size, DC would still only get one.)

You're saying, till 1980 D.C. ought to have had 4 EV, and it basically "lost" one since then?

D.C. hit its peak population share in 1950, with 2.316/435 of the US population, and more than 13 states: RI, AZ, UT, NM, SD, ND, MT, ID, NH, VT, DE, WY, and NV, the first eight had two representatives. This was D.C. peak population at 802K.

By 1960, the population share was 1.853/435, and more than 11 states: SD, MT, ID, HI, ND, NH, DE, VT, WY, NV, and AK, the first six had two representatives. Four states passed DC, but HI and AK were added.

By 1970, the population share was 1.619/435, and more than 10 states: NH, ID, MT, SD, ND, DE, NV, VT, WY, and AK, with the first four with two representatives. HI had passed DC, and ND lost its 2nd representative.

By 1980, the population share was 1.226/435, more than 4 states: DE, VT, WY, AK, all with one representative.

By 1990, 1.061/435, more than VT, AK, WY.

By 2000, 0.884/435 more than WY. This was DC's modern low at 571K, down 29% from 1950.

By 2010, 0.848/435 more than WY.

Since 2010, DC has passed VT.

[mileslunn]

Also urban areas have generally been declining in numbers.  Yes metropolitan areas are growing as rural areas are declining, but I suspect high cost of housing probably limits how much DC can grow as any growth will just drive up housing prices making it too expensive for most to afford to live there.  As such it is the suburbs as opposed to DC proper where most of the growth is occurring which is growing quite rapidly.  That is a big reason why Virginia is now a blue state instead of red state due to the growth of the DC suburbs which have helped tip it in the Democrat's favour.

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Also urban areas have generally been declining in numbers.  Yes metropolitan areas are growing as rural areas are declining, but I suspect high cost of housing probably limits how much DC can grow as any growth will just drive up housing prices making it too expensive for most to afford to live there.  As such it is the suburbs as opposed to DC proper where most of the growth is occurring which is growing quite rapidly.  That is a big reason why Virginia is now a blue state instead of red state due to the growth of the DC suburbs which have helped tip it in the Democrat's favour.

It's expensive because people want to live there, and it has been growing, but new housing is being added at a slower rate than demand increases with, so prices go up. My point is DC is growing now and will be for the foreseeable future, just like most non-midwestern urban cores.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

D.C. is filling back in, but it's hard to see how given current building codes in the district designed to ensure that there's loads of public space and that the skyline is dominated by the Capitol and the Washington Monument how it could ever pass the 1,000,000 mark. It would need to exceed that with the current U.S. population to be eligible for a 4th EV even without the clause limiting it to 3.  Making it even less likely is that by the time D.C. could reach 1,000,000, the U.S. population will likely exceed 400,000,000. D.C. itself will never have skyscrapers.

[Former President tack50]

Decided to look at how a 2 district DC would work. I came up with this map



DC 1st (blue)

Race:
61% white
19% black
11% hispanic
6% asian
3% other

Voting in 2008:
Obama 87.6%
McCain 11.6%

DC 2nd (green)

Race:
81% black
8.5% white
7.3% hispanic
1.1% asian
1.9% other

Voting in 2008
Obama 97.9%
McCain 1.7%

DC's 2nd district would see North Korea like voting patterns lol. I wonder if Trump broke 1% there.

[Cokeland Saxton]

DC is soon to pass North Dakota, maybe in the 2020s sometime, which is a long way off from a likely necessary 1.15k.

[muon2]

DC is soon to pass North Dakota, maybe in the 2020s sometime, which is a long way off from a likely necessary 1.15k.

That depends on the price of oil over the next decade. ND has grown more quickly than DC when oil is high. On the average this decade ND has grown at 1.6% per year which is only slightly less than DC at 2.0% per year. At these rates DC will only overtake ND close to 2050, which is also about when it would catch DE.

[DINGO Joe]

DC is soon to pass North Dakota, maybe in the 2020s sometime, which is a long way off from a likely necessary 1.15k.

That depends on the price of oil over the next decade. ND has grown more quickly than DC when oil is high. On the average this decade ND has grown at 1.6% per year which is only slightly less than DC at 2.0% per year. At these rates DC will only overtake ND close to 2050, which is also about when it would catch DE.

A substantial part of the growth had to do with the newness of the industry both in location and technology.  It takes more people to build an infrastructure and takeaway capacity than it does to maintain it.  Yes there are still some pipelines and natural gas processing facilities to be built, but ND is nearing the end of the infrastructure cycle.  Also, fracking technology has gotten much more efficient and requires less manpower than it did 5 years ago.  At some point, production may hit a wall as the easiest wells play out and more manpower may or may not be needed, but I would expect that employment in energy in ND has probably peaked.

ND does derive revenue from energy production, whether they can or will utilize the revenue stream to develop and diversify the economy overall is an open question.