2020 redistricting with DRA (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 28, 2024, 01:02:06 PM
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)
  2020 redistricting with DRA (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2020 redistricting with DRA  (Read 9058 times)
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
« on: August 24, 2018, 08:25:39 PM »

Issue:



This is the projected 2020 apportionment changes. These projections show a confidence level beyond the margin of error too with regards to the difference in priority value between seat 435 and seat 436. Your projections seem to not line up with this.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
« Reply #1 on: August 25, 2018, 02:10:53 PM »

Issue:



This is the projected 2020 apportionment changes. These projections show a confidence level beyond the margin of error too with regards to the difference in priority value between seat 435 and seat 436. Your projections seem to not line up with this.
2020 is still years away...different growth rates result in different apportionments
The projections I found show a difference in priority values for seat 435 and 436 beyond the margin of error with just 2.75 years out. There is no way your projections should be any different unless you are using incorrect data.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
« Reply #2 on: August 25, 2018, 02:22:52 PM »

Issue:



This is the projected 2020 apportionment changes. These projections show a confidence level beyond the margin of error too with regards to the difference in priority value between seat 435 and seat 436. Your projections seem to not line up with this.
2020 is still years away...different growth rates result in different apportionments
The projections I found show a difference in priority values for seat 435 and 436 beyond the margin of error with just 2.75 years out. There is no way your projections should be any different unless you are using incorrect data.
there are multiple projections showing a battle between MT-02 vs. TX-39 depending on future growth
According to my calculations, AZ-10 is seat 435, and MT-02 is seat 436, with the difference between the 2 priority values beyond the margin of error.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
« Reply #3 on: August 25, 2018, 04:44:27 PM »

In my opinion, keeping Ramsey County, Minnesota whole should be high priority.
Logged
America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS
Solid4096
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,738


Political Matrix
E: -8.88, S: -8.51

P P P
« Reply #4 on: September 10, 2018, 07:27:26 PM »

Where'd u get 2012 and 2016 result estimates for your districts?

They're in DRA now for most states (maybe all of them?)

How do I access them? All I see right now is a vague 2012/2016 PVI tab.
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 0.033 seconds with 12 queries.