2030 Electoral Map

[muon2]

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

[muon2]

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 ). 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.

[muon2]

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.

[muon2]

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.

[muon2]

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.