Montana and Delaware +1 in 2020? (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 29, 2024, 02:24:27 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  Montana and Delaware +1 in 2020? (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: Montana and Delaware +1 in 2020?  (Read 4830 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« on: March 02, 2009, 05:44:49 AM »

You can think of the 1st number as a non-integer apportionment.  If it is below 1.5 the state would get 1 representative.  The second number is the projected change from 2000-2010.  You could use this as crude projection for 2010 to 2020.  The 5th is the increase/decrease in population needed to get one more/fewer seats in 2010.

Delaware is slowly gaining on the 2nd seat, but it could be another 30 years or so before it gains the seat that Thomas Jefferson denied it.  It increased at 4% faster than the USA at large, but would need 12% more to get a 2nd seat.

Montana very narrowly lost its 2nd seat in 1990.  Early in the 1990s it appeared that it would gain it back, but its growth tailed off toward the end of the decade.  It is growing very slightly slower than the USA as whole.  If it could grow 2% faster than the country as a whole, it could gain back the 2nd seat.  Or it could continue on for a very long time as the most populous CD in the country (at least following the census).

Rhode Island is quite in line to lose its 2nd seat in 2020.  It really isn't a case of Delaware and Montana catching Rhode Island, as Rhode Island falling back towards them.

Alaska                1.102    0.013   1   11.6%  43.0%
Delaware              1.350    0.042   1   14.0%  12.0%
Hawaii                1.899   -0.036   2    7.7% -23.4%
Idaho                 2.270    0.212   2   21.9%   9.9%
Maine                 1.926   -0.103   2    4.0% -24.5%
Montana               1.466   -0.013   1    8.8%   1.9%
New Hampshire         1.937   -0.033   2    7.9% -25.0%
North Dakota          1.030   -0.080   1   -0.1%  56.0%
Rhode Island          1.558   -0.135   2    0.3%  -4.9%
South Dakota          1.248   -0.019   1    8.0%  22.8%
Vermont               1.008   -0.055   1    2.5%  60.4%
Wyoming               0.909   -0.002   1    9.6%  84.9%
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #1 on: January 20, 2021, 02:44:20 PM »

Fun fact.

The final tie-breaker for senate seniority when the senators are from different states is population rank of the two states at the preceding census.

When Jon Tester (D-MT) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) took office in 2007, Rhode Island had the greater population in the 2000 Census, Whitehouse is the more senior member.

Had they taken office after the 2020 Census, Tester would outrank Whitehouse.

The final tie-breaker only applies to two senators from the same state with the same credentials who took office on the same day. This applies to Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. Ossoff is the 99th most-senior senator based on being elected to the full term.

Both will be ranked below Alex Padilla based on Georgia having less population than California.

All three will be ranked behind the seven other freshmen who took office earlier.

Mark Kelly ranks 91st on the basis of taking office after winning the special election.

Ben Ray Luján, Cynthia Lummis, and Roger Marshall rank 92nd to 94th, respectively based on their previous service in the House (12, 8, and 4 years).

John Hickenlooper is 95th based on former service as a governor.

Bill Hagerty and Tommy Tuberville are 96th and 97th based on the respective ranks of Tennessee and Alabama in the 2010 Census (but it would seem that this should be the 2020 Census, I guess we will have to wait for the official release). It also seems odd that head coach at a Power 5 University does not count.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #2 on: January 20, 2021, 10:24:38 PM »

In some early elections, Delaware popularly elected its presidential electors by district, which corresponded to the three counties.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2021, 10:38:21 PM »

If Delaware gained a congressional seat my heart would break. DE-At-Large has existed since the congress.

That's not true. As I said in way back in 2009, Delaware had 2 House seats from 1813-23.

Correction: that's partially correct. Although DE had 2 seats from 1813-1823, it never broke the state into 2 separate geographical districts, as it would have to do now.
Delaware also would have had two representatives after the 1790 Census but for the infamous Tommymander.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,817
Marshall Islands


« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2021, 04:42:13 AM »

In some early elections, Delaware popularly elected its presidential electors by district, which corresponded to the three counties.
was there ever a split?
It was in 1789. All three electors voted for George Washington and John Jay. Delaware switched to legislative appointment in 1792. It was the second to last state to switch to popular election (at large) in 1832 (not counting Colorado in 1876).

Interestingly, there was a proposed revival last year.

HB 357 150th General Assembly (2019 - 2020) AN ACT TO AMEND TITLE 15 OF THE DELAWARE CODE AND THE LAWS OF DELAWARE RELATING TO PRESIDENTIAL ELECTORS.

For some reason that I don't understand all the co-sponsors were Republicans, and it didn't even get a committee hearing. Joe must have quashed it.

Maybe it will be re-introduced. If at first you do not Sussex succeed, try try again.
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 0.03 seconds with 12 queries.