2012 Electoral Vote Changes (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 18, 2024, 08:26:10 PM
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 21664 times)
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« 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 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
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« Reply #1 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).
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« Reply #2 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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« Reply #3 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.
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« Reply #4 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:


Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,800


« Reply #5 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 page was my source for the data (I used table A1.) Then I processed those numbers on a spreadsheet using the standard apportionment method. The map was generated using the Atlas.
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.