|           
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2020, 02:03:44 pm
News:
If you are having trouble logging in due to invalid user name / pass:

Consider resetting your account password, as you may have forgotten it over time if using a password manager.

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: Virgini)
  2030 Electoral Map
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 Print
Author Topic: 2030 Electoral Map  (Read 18478 times)
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: July 26, 2006, 12:45:30 pm »
« edited: July 26, 2006, 02:30:33 pm by Senator jerusalemcar5 »

Reignman notfied me this is a more appropriate place for this topic, so I am putting it here:

There's a lot of dicussion over which areas of the country Democrats and Republicans shoyuld focus on if they wan tto win presidential elections.  Well I drew up a map based on US Census projections for 2030.

I then drew up a 2032 presidential electoral map (now with muon2's help).  Also, I'd like to debate which area of the country is most important to really focus on for the parties:



So do we focus out west, the Atlantic South, or somewhere else?  Will the Atlantic South naturally trend Democratic as it becomes more urban and cosmopolitan?

Blue=Gain from 2000

Red=Lose from 2000

(THANKS MUON!)

Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: July 26, 2006, 12:57:22 pm »

Florida would become more important. Taking into account which states trend Dem and which trend GOP, that'll also affect strategy.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: July 26, 2006, 01:08:48 pm »

When I use the census data you linked to, and the official methodology for apportionment, I get different numbers. I've listed those that are different.

CA - 57
CT - 6
FL - 36
ID - 4
IA - 6
KS - 6
MD - 10
MA - 10
NY - 25
RI - 3
TX - 42
WA - 12
WI - 9
Logged
○∙◄☻tπ[╪AV┼cV└
jfern
Atlas Legend
*****
Posts: 47,248


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: July 26, 2006, 01:23:00 pm »

The method of apportionment used favors the small states. sqrt(n*(n-1))*k people are needed for n representatives, where k is the number that would give 435 representatives.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: July 26, 2006, 01:40:35 pm »

With the updated map I think the parties should definitely go after Texas and Florida.  These states will be huge and both will have the population demographics that could help either party.  They will be gainings about 17 electors over the next few censuses so contorlling them will be key.
Logged
Reignman
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,237


Political Matrix
E: -3.23, S: -3.65

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: July 26, 2006, 02:14:32 pm »

How competitive is Texas gonna be in 2030?
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: July 26, 2006, 06:36:47 pm »

I doubt that it will happen just as the census predicts.  treands will change.  As realestate becomes cheaper in the Northeast and Midwest, more people will coose to either stay there, or comeback.  Also, the Northern states will eventually lift a number of the government blocks that keep businesses from establishing there.

As for the Southwest, there soon won't be enough water to sustain much more growth.  New technology will develop, but it won't be common fast enough to allow that kind of growth.

California is due for another major earthquake.  I hope it doesn't happen, but hoping will not stop it.  It is only a matter of time.  When that happens, it will serious stunt the growth of the state.  Not to mention that sprawl and real estate prices make living there more and more inconvienient.

Florida will also slow in growth.  This will be for much the same reasons that California's growth will slow, accept hurricanes instead of earthquakes.  Plus, there is the added fact that the ground itself is not favorable for building, sine any new growth will have to go farther into the marshes.

I see the continued growth of Texas as pretty realistic.  There really aren't too many blocks to that occuring.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: July 26, 2006, 09:52:42 pm »

Supersoulty has the right idea. There are two huge problems with forecasts to 2030. One is that the census can project current trends, but can't anticipate new trends very well. Changes in immigration patterns as well as relocation patterens are likely to shift as they have with each generation. I'm comfortable looking at 2010, but my confidence drops a lot when I'm dealing with voters who aren't yet born.

The second factor is in the parties themselves. 2032 is 28 years from the last presidential election. 28 years before 2004 was 1976 (my first chance to vote Smiley ). Both elections were decided with the winner holding under 300 EV -- they're close. Compare the maps of those two elections and there are 24 states that voted differently. That's almost half. The South and Pacific Coast, and northern New England flipped. IL and MI were in the GOP camp in 1976. It's an even bet that another shift will occur sometime in the next 28 years.
Logged
jerusalemcar5
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,731
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -4.26, S: -8.35

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: July 27, 2006, 12:42:41 am »

Supersoulty has the right idea. There are two huge problems with forecasts to 2030. One is that the census can project current trends, but can't anticipate new trends very well. Changes in immigration patterns as well as relocation patterens are likely to shift as they have with each generation. I'm comfortable looking at 2010, but my confidence drops a lot when I'm dealing with voters who aren't yet born.

The second factor is in the parties themselves. 2032 is 28 years from the last presidential election. 28 years before 2004 was 1976 (my first chance to vote Smiley ). Both elections were decided with the winner holding under 300 EV -- they're close. Compare the maps of those two elections and there are 24 states that voted differently. That's almost half. The South and Pacific Coast, and northern New England flipped. IL and MI were in the GOP camp in 1976. It's an even bet that another shift will occur sometime in the next 28 years.

I agree with distant population predicitions to be weak, but I disagree with your party analysis.  The parties switched ideologies after 100 years sticking with on ideology.  1976 was a year when the change was still underway and so the election played out oddly with people voting Republic or Democrat for opposing reasons.  I believe the current ideologies are here to stay for a long time.
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: July 27, 2006, 01:00:55 am »

Supersoulty has the right idea. There are two huge problems with forecasts to 2030. One is that the census can project current trends, but can't anticipate new trends very well. Changes in immigration patterns as well as relocation patterens are likely to shift as they have with each generation. I'm comfortable looking at 2010, but my confidence drops a lot when I'm dealing with voters who aren't yet born.

The second factor is in the parties themselves. 2032 is 28 years from the last presidential election. 28 years before 2004 was 1976 (my first chance to vote Smiley ). Both elections were decided with the winner holding under 300 EV -- they're close. Compare the maps of those two elections and there are 24 states that voted differently. That's almost half. The South and Pacific Coast, and northern New England flipped. IL and MI were in the GOP camp in 1976. It's an even bet that another shift will occur sometime in the next 28 years.

I agree with distant population predicitions to be weak, but I disagree with your party analysis.  The parties switched ideologies after 100 years sticking with on ideology.  1976 was a year when the change was still underway and so the election played out oddly with people voting Republic or Democrat for opposing reasons.  I believe the current ideologies are here to stay for a long time.

Realignments dont only happen once every 100 years.

Also, if you look at the electorate today, would you not say that voters vote for the two major parties for vastly different reasons.

That is why this current allignment really bothers me, and I don't think it can hold.  I would say the most natural allignment is essencially libertarian vs populist, and that was the way politics behaved for nearly all of the past 200 years.  The current parties are an amalgamation of odd interests, that I don't think can hold together for very long.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,627
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: July 29, 2006, 01:18:16 pm »

Hmm, i just found out that in 1980 Kerry would have won 270 to 268 if he would have carried all the states he carried in 2004. In 2030 he would get only 230 votes. This means Democrats HAVE TO WIN states which are now Republican because these states are the ones which will gain the most electoral votes in the future.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: July 29, 2006, 05:46:17 pm »

Hmm, i just found out that in 1980 Kerry would have won 270 to 268 if he would have carried all the states he carried in 2004. In 2030 he would get only 230 votes. This means Democrats HAVE TO WIN states which are now Republican because these states are the ones which will gain the most electoral votes in the future.

The bigger challenge is to gain an outright majority of the vote. Democrats have only succeeded twice since FDR: the Johnson landslide of 1964, and Carter's 50.1% in 1976. The Republicans exceeded 50% in seven of their nine wins in that same period.
Logged
Harry Hayfield
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,950
United Kingdom


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: 0.35

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: July 29, 2006, 06:12:16 pm »

Reignman notfied me this is a more appropriate place for this topic, so I am putting it here:

There's a lot of dicussion over which areas of the country Democrats and Republicans shoyuld focus on if they wan tto win presidential elections.  Well I drew up a map based on US Census projections for 2030.

I then drew up a 2032 presidential electoral map (now with muon2's help).  Also, I'd like to debate which area of the country is most important to really focus on for the parties:



So do we focus out west, the Atlantic South, or somewhere else?  Will the Atlantic South naturally trend Democratic as it becomes more urban and cosmopolitan?

Blue=Gain from 2000

Red=Lose from 2000

(THANKS MUON!)



Mmm, interesting map. Let's see what the big ones look like (that should give us a good base)

CA 57, TX 42, FL 36, NY 25, IL 18, PA 17, NC 17, OH 16, GA 16, MI 15, NJ 14, VA 14 (which gives you 287 ECV's)
Logged
12th Doctor
supersoulty
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 20,601
Ukraine


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: July 30, 2006, 03:19:46 am »

Hmm, i just found out that in 1980 Kerry would have won 270 to 268 if he would have carried all the states he carried in 2004. In 2030 he would get only 230 votes. This means Democrats HAVE TO WIN states which are now Republican because these states are the ones which will gain the most electoral votes in the future.

The bigger challenge is to gain an outright majority of the vote. Democrats have only succeeded twice since FDR: the Johnson landslide of 1964, and Carter's 50.1% in 1976. The Republicans exceeded 50% in seven of their nine wins in that same period.

True.  From a political standpoint, Clinton was shackled during his presidency by the fact that he failed to achieve a mandate.  Though most people don't remember it, Kennedy acctually had the same problem.
Logged
minionofmidas - supplemental forum account
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,239
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: July 30, 2006, 07:01:37 am »

The method of apportionment used favors the small states. sqrt(n*(n-1))*k people are needed for n representatives, where k is the number that would give 435 representatives.
Does it? I seem to recall that it slightly favors both larger and smaller states at the expense of medium sized ones when compared to Hare-Niemeyer.
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: August 30, 2006, 05:25:26 pm »

I got some different results when I allocated the votes for the 2030 estimates. I think I used the same method as the census, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Apportionment

With this method, these are the changes:
CA: 55
TX: 40
FL: 36
NY: 24
NC: 16
KY: 8
CT: 7
ID: 5
NE: 5
MT: 4
DE: 4

The changes are slight, but the whole idea remains the same, the movement is from the Northeast, Great Lakes, and parts of the South.
With the way things are going, Nevada should be turning Democratic within time as it has been, and Arizona, Texas, and the Atlantic Southeast will become more competitive. If the Democratic party keeps a hold of their current states in the Northeast and Midwest, while taking advantage of new found liberals in other regions, the changes could be great.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: September 04, 2006, 05:52:15 pm »

I got some different results when I allocated the votes for the 2030 estimates. I think I used the same method as the census, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Apportionment

With this method, these are the changes:
CA: 55
TX: 40
FL: 36
NY: 24
NC: 16
KY: 8
CT: 7
ID: 5
NE: 5
MT: 4
DE: 4

The changes are slight, but the whole idea remains the same, the movement is from the Northeast, Great Lakes, and parts of the South.
With the way things are going, Nevada should be turning Democratic within time as it has been, and Arizona, Texas, and the Atlantic Southeast will become more competitive. If the Democratic party keeps a hold of their current states in the Northeast and Midwest, while taking advantage of new found liberals in other regions, the changes could be great.

Are these changes sompared to the map at the top of the thread? If so, they seem strange. In particular, consider DE which you have at 4 or 2 CDs. The 2030 projection is 1,013 K people for DE and that's only about 20% larger than the expected ideal CD at 835 K. They can't get a second CD based on that.

If you've applied the method in the Wiki article then you should be able to say when each state gets each seat, in order from 51 to 435. DE shouldn't be on that list.
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: September 04, 2006, 11:14:27 pm »

I got some different results when I allocated the votes for the 2030 estimates. I think I used the same method as the census, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Apportionment

With this method, these are the changes:
CA: 55
TX: 40
FL: 36
NY: 24
NC: 16
KY: 8
CT: 7
ID: 5
NE: 5
MT: 4
DE: 4

The changes are slight, but the whole idea remains the same, the movement is from the Northeast, Great Lakes, and parts of the South.
With the way things are going, Nevada should be turning Democratic within time as it has been, and Arizona, Texas, and the Atlantic Southeast will become more competitive. If the Democratic party keeps a hold of their current states in the Northeast and Midwest, while taking advantage of new found liberals in other regions, the changes could be great.

Are these changes sompared to the map at the top of the thread? If so, they seem strange. In particular, consider DE which you have at 4 or 2 CDs. The 2030 projection is 1,013 K people for DE and that's only about 20% larger than the expected ideal CD at 835 K. They can't get a second CD based on that.

If you've applied the method in the Wiki article then you should be able to say when each state gets each seat, in order from 51 to 435. DE shouldn't be on that list.

I know it's weird, but that's what I got. I actually expected DE to have 1 CD (as well as MT) but those are the results I found.
Logged
muon2
Modadmin
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,491


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: September 04, 2006, 11:36:05 pm »

I got some different results when I allocated the votes for the 2030 estimates. I think I used the same method as the census, according to wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Congressional_Apportionment

With this method, these are the changes:
CA: 55
TX: 40
FL: 36
NY: 24
NC: 16
KY: 8
CT: 7
ID: 5
NE: 5
MT: 4
DE: 4

The changes are slight, but the whole idea remains the same, the movement is from the Northeast, Great Lakes, and parts of the South.
With the way things are going, Nevada should be turning Democratic within time as it has been, and Arizona, Texas, and the Atlantic Southeast will become more competitive. If the Democratic party keeps a hold of their current states in the Northeast and Midwest, while taking advantage of new found liberals in other regions, the changes could be great.

Are these changes sompared to the map at the top of the thread? If so, they seem strange. In particular, consider DE which you have at 4 or 2 CDs. The 2030 projection is 1,013 K people for DE and that's only about 20% larger than the expected ideal CD at 835 K. They can't get a second CD based on that.

If you've applied the method in the Wiki article then you should be able to say when each state gets each seat, in order from 51 to 435. DE shouldn't be on that list.

I know it's weird, but that's what I got. I actually expected DE to have 1 CD (as well as MT) but those are the results I found.
Part of my question was to find out what value gave DE (and MT) their second seats for you. The average CD according to the 2030 census projections should be 834.8 K. Since there are states with less than that total population, the highest priority state left after all 435 seats are apportioned is CA's 56th seat at 836.9 K.

Consider DE and MT with projected pops of 1012.7 K and 1044.9 K respectively. The general priority formula is P/sqrt(n(n+1)), and after each state gets their minimum one seat the second seat is P/sqrt(2). For DE and MT the second seat priorities are 716.1 K and 738.9 K. These are both way below the average for a second seat.

If your calculation has anything other than 834.8 K for the average, and the two numbers above for DE and MT then your calculations are off. If you had those values for the two states, but got to them before you gave out all 436 seats, then there was an error in your process, since you cannot mathematically get to any values below the seat average.

I'd be happy to help you find your error if you give me more info to work on.
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: September 05, 2006, 11:41:52 am »

I did take a look at my math, and it appears I made an error somehow although I have no idea what I did, I think I apportioned it with either the wrong formula, or I just messed up my calculations somewhere.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: September 05, 2006, 03:18:37 pm »

I did take a look at my math, and it appears I made an error somehow although I have no idea what I did, I think I apportioned it with either the wrong formula, or I just messed up my calculations somewhere.

Did you forget to adjust for the District of Columbia (or Wyoming, if they have "less than" a seat, by then)?
Logged
ottermax
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,450
United States


Political Matrix
E: -4.97, S: -6.52

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: September 05, 2006, 06:12:39 pm »

I just tried to figure out the apportionment for the CD's, so I didn't use D.C.
Logged
Alcon
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 30,909
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: September 05, 2006, 06:40:14 pm »

I just tried to figure out the apportionment for the CD's, so I didn't use D.C.

But D.C. needs to be figured into the final electoral count, I'd think.
Logged
jacob_101
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 647


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: September 05, 2006, 08:02:50 pm »

Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 52,627
Austria


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: September 10, 2006, 08:50:59 am »


AZ, TX and FL will definitely gain EVs.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines