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

[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

[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?

[Kamala's side hoe]

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 CA’s 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.

[Frodo]

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. 

[Ragnaroni]

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.

[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.

[oldtimer]

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

[Agonized-Statism]

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.

[BigVic]

[BigVic]

[Skill and Chance]

What on earth happened to the Gulf Coast?!

[Lincoln Project]

[Lincoln Project]

[BigVic]

What on earth happened to the Gulf Coast?!

Climate crisis and hurricanes plus threats of rising sea levels

[DS0816]

You should just borrow from pre-suckup-to-the-establishment Stephen Colbert, on Comedy Central’s Election Night 2008 coverage, and choose a state to make as the Bonus State. You can double its allocation of electoral votes. Then take that difference and penalize other states to balance the rest of the nation with the usual total allocation of 538 electoral votes. (By the way: Colbert, understandably, opted for South Carolina.)

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656

Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

[Skill and Chance]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656

Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

So I do expect a big pro-GOP shift, and I actually posted an extreme scenario further up this thread.  However, something occurs to me: if these maps assume a linear extrapolation of 2020-22 trends that seems unreasonable unless there are additional pandemics of similar severity throughout the decade! 

So, while I agree the South was likely undercounted in 2020, it's very possible that most of the movement between states that's going to happen this decade has already happened.

Also, are we sure the 2030 census won't continue to skew in the same way relative to the annual population estimates?  Ironically, Republican activism in the 1990's made it unconstitutional to incorporate statistical sampling into the official census.

[LabourJersey]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656

Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that California will lose 5 (!) House seats in the next apportionment cycle.

[oldtimer]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656
Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that California will lose 5 (!) House seats in the next apportionment cycle.

If the previous census was problematic and underestimated population movements, the next census will correct it by recording larger moves.

[LabourJersey]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656
Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that California will lose 5 (!) House seats in the next apportionment cycle.

If the previous census was problematic and underestimated population movements, the next census will correct it by recording larger moves.

I still think that a loss of 5 seats would imply a degree of miscounting and population loss that would be absolutely unprecedented in American history.

I understand that California is facing its fair share of problems but still.

[Kamala's side hoe]

I'm very skeptical of the idea that California will lose 5 (!) House seats in the next apportionment cycle.

If the previous census was problematic and underestimated population movements, the next census will correct it by recording larger moves.

I still think that a loss of 5 seats would imply a degree of miscounting and population loss that would be absolutely unprecedented in American history.

I understand that California is facing its fair share of problems but still.

I'm also skeptical of CA losing 5 seats- if only because it seems like municipal governments have been taking measures to upzone and promote densification/construction in urban cores.

[Vosem]

https://twitter.com/politicsmaps/status/1606110079685574656
Depending on what you code as a GOP-leaning or not GOP-leaning state, our best guess is that the 2030 Census represents something like adding an extra Tennessee to the Electoral College. (At these numbers, Trump 2016 without any of MI/PA/WI is still a Republican victory, and for 2020 Trump needed to win any 2 of AZ/GA/WI -- not all three -- to flip the election). Assuming FL/NC/TX are solid -- all big assumptions to be sure -- Republicans after 2030 can win the Presidency with any two of AZ/GA/MI/PA/WI. (AZ/WI is uncertain: 2020, but the GOP flips those states, comes out at 269-269 on the above numbers, so if they're exaggerated that might still be a Democratic victory.)

There is a perception on the Democratic side that once they can reliably flip another Sunbelt state that the GOP will struggle to win nationally, but this to some extent puts the lie to that. Democrats need to keep flipping Sunbelt states to remain competitive nationally at all. And to be fair their recent record in AZ/GA has actually been very strong -- but it remains the case that even under high-turnout conditions they have pretty low floors in both states, particularly AZ.

I'm very skeptical of the idea that California will lose 5 (!) House seats in the next apportionment cycle.

If the previous census was problematic and underestimated population movements, the next census will correct it by recording larger moves.

I still think that a loss of 5 seats would imply a degree of miscounting and population loss that would be absolutely unprecedented in American history.

I understand that California is facing its fair share of problems but still.

I agree that a 5-seat loss would be very large and it probably won't be quite as bad (take my note that just flipping AZ/WI probably won't be enough to actually win a presidential election), but I think "large losses" are probably close to baked in. (Oldtimer has a point, but I'm not sure CA was actually overstated much in 2020: my understanding is that happened to Northeastern and Midwestern urban areas, particularly NY and MN.)

CA really is experiencing enormous domestic out-migration, and it's tough to say how much of this is a COVID effect. The number I'm actually most skeptical of is FL gaining 4: FL had a large COVID-era inflow and it's hard to say whether it'll continue.

A 5-seat loss wouldn't be unprecedented at all: New York lost 5 seats in the 1980 Census. Even bigger gains have been recorded (for instance, CA gained 8 seats in 1960); usually at the state level the pace of gain tends to be faster than the pace of loss.

[Person Man]

I seriously doubt that post-pandemic trends will continue, especially as the main driver of people moving for certain reasons is changing.

[BigVic]

[BigVic]