2012 Electoral Vote Changes (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 26, 2024, 04:12:11 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 100% pro-life no matter what)
  2012 Electoral Vote Changes (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2012 Electoral Vote Changes  (Read 21749 times)
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« 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)?
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« Reply #1 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.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« Reply #2 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.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« Reply #3 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.

Wouldnīt Oregon get an 8th then ? Oregon has a higher population than Oklahoma now and itīs growing far faster than Oklahoma.

Okay, give both Oregon and Oklahoma an 8th and take one away from Texas and California.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« Reply #4 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.
Logged
Joe Biden 2020
BushOklahoma
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 24,921
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.77, S: 3.48

« Reply #5 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.
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 0.031 seconds with 12 queries.