2030s electoral college map from 2032-2040 and future trends
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
February 02, 2023, 04:18:11 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: 14 Down, 36 To Go)
  2030s electoral college map from 2032-2040 and future trends
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2030s electoral college map from 2032-2040 and future trends  (Read 685 times)
BigVic
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,243
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: January 22, 2023, 11:57:00 PM »
« edited: January 23, 2023, 04:15:44 AM by BigVic »



I think TX will be the key battleground state in the 30s with Alaska turning blue. By this point, FL and OH will be safe/lean R. TX and FL are the biggest winners while the Midwest and CA all lose electoral votes. CA  could be turning purple
Logged
Roll Roons
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 8,510
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: January 23, 2023, 12:11:06 AM »
« Edited: January 23, 2023, 12:18:45 AM by Roll Roons »

At least for 2032, I think the map will generally look recognizable to a late 2010s/early 2020s observer, though there might be a few surprises.

At the same time, it will be shaped by whatever happens in the next few years and by the choices that both parties make.

Something to consider: what about the 2030s coalitions do you think would be most surprising to an observer in 2023?
Logged
khuzifenq
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,480
United States


P
WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: January 23, 2023, 12:18:08 AM »

At least for 2032, I think the map will generally look recognizable to a late 2010s/early 2020s observer, though there might be a few surprises.

OR gaining 2 seats at CAs expense while WA and NV hold steady definitely would be one. Curious how much of that disproportionate growth would be in Metro PDX, and how much of it is from expanding the Urban Growth Boundary versus upzoning and densification in the city and OR suburbs.
Logged
Frodo
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,603
United States


WWW Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: January 23, 2023, 02:16:30 AM »

The biggest change in the 2030s -compared to the past few decades- would be Texas if we are talking about partisan shifts.  By this point it would be a true swing state. 
Logged
Ragnaroni
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 276
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: January 23, 2023, 05:56:53 AM »



I think TX will be the key battleground state in the 30s with Alaska turning blue. By this point, FL and OH will be safe/lean R. TX and FL are the biggest winners while the Midwest and CA all lose electoral votes. CA  could be turning purple
I sincerely doubt this unless the next generation is somehow redder than the ones before it, a trend that hasn't happened yet.
Logged
MarkD
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,291
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: January 24, 2023, 03:15:56 PM »
« Edited: January 24, 2023, 09:41:07 PM by MarkD »



I think TX will be the key battleground state in the 30s with Alaska turning blue. By this point, FL and OH will be safe/lean R. TX and FL are the biggest winners while the Midwest and CA all lose electoral votes. CA  could be turning purple

IMO, this is not a believable map. There are too many "wrong" numbers among the 50 states in this map. You've got fully 26 of the states - a majority of the 50 - changing their House apportionment (and hence, their ECVs) from the 2021 reapportionment. That's extremely rare to have that many states change their apportionment of seats in the House in just one decade. And, out of all 50 numbers I see on that map, 13 of them are downright unbelievable, because the new apportionment you are giving them would be based on drastic changes to the rate of population growth/decline in those 13 states (during the 2020s, compared to population changes in previous decades).

Here are the 13 numbers that I do not believe are the slightest bit realistic:
  - Connecticut, Missouri, and Tennessee are each losing one seat
  - neither Pennsylvania nor Rhode Island are losing a seat
  - Kansas, Montana, and New Mexico are each gaining one seat
  - Colorado and Oregon are both gaining two more seats
  - Florida and Georgia are both gaining three more seats
  - most unrealistic of all, Arizona is losing two seats

In order to assume that these changes could occur, you'd have to be making assumptions about changes to the rate of population growth/decline in those states that are extremely unlikely. For example, in order to believe that neither PA nor RI would lose any seats during the 2031 reapportionment, you'd have to see a drastic increase in the rate of population growth in both of them during this decade - a much higher rate of growth than either of those states has seen in the past several decades. Population growth in both of those states would have to be pretty darn close to the nationwide rate of population growth; it would be a rate of growth much higher than in any of the past 80-90 years. Why would either of those states start growing now as fast as the whole nation? For Florida to gain three more seats in the 2031 reapportionment, its rate of population growth would have to be similar to - but just slightly less than - its rate of growth 4 and 5 decades ago, but in reality Florida's rate of growth during the last 1-3 decades has been much slower than 4-5 decades ago. In order for CT, MO, and TN to each lose a seat next decade, those three states would have to experience a net population loss, probably tens of thousands fewer people than the 2020 census. Most outlandish of all, in order for Arizona to lose two seats, it would have to lose anywhere from 750k to about 1 million people - maybe even more - during this decade! What could cause population loss of that magnitude in Arizona?

Not all of the apportionment numbers you've put in that map are implausible, but the numbers for those 13 states certainly are very implausible.
Logged
oldtimer
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 377
Greece


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: January 24, 2023, 03:33:30 PM »

If currents trends continue and are exaggerated, it would look like this:

Logged
Obama Baraka
Anarcho-Statism
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,999
Nepal


Political Matrix
E: -7.61, S: -3.13

P

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 25, 2023, 01:21:51 PM »

Things will be changing very fast by the 2030s. The decade will see the first Gen Alpha voters, and Boomers will be between 65 at the youngest in 2030 and 95 at the oldest in 2040- many of them reaching the average life expectancy. According to the 2021 annual report from the Social Security Board of Trustees, Social Security's cash reserves will be fully depleted by 2034. According to the IPCC, we're on track to hit six climate tipping points during the decade. Geopolitics could experience major shifts from a vacuum in Russia if the War in Ukraine has been sustained to the point of collapse. That's not even touching the economic restructuring that would result from quantum computing and other emerging technologies. My point is that candidates will have to run on pretty radical platforms to address these things and that elections then could be a lot more decisive for the party that adapts best.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
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 0.048 seconds with 13 queries.