Showing posts with label 2010 census. Show all posts
Showing posts with label 2010 census. Show all posts

Sunday, January 2, 2011

The 2012-2020 Electoral College Map


[Click to Enlarge]

In view of the fact that the Census Bureau released its population numbers prior to the holidays, FHQ needs to issue a clerical change to its 2012 electoral college map; shifting from projection to reality. Not to beat a dead horse, but the take away is that the population in the purple to bluish states in the Rust Belt and northeast grew at a much slower rate (Michigan lost population) than red states in the southeast and purple to reddish states in the southwest. The seats in Congress shift accordingly. And while that appears to hypothetically swell the ranks of the GOP not only in the House but in the electoral college tally as well, that growth may be muted even in light of the gains the Republican Party made at the state legislative level in the 2010 midterm elections.

There was only a six electoral vote shift using the 2008 election results and the newly reapportioned map. Obama would have won 359-179 as opposed to 365-173. And the question remains whether Republicans at the state level will solidify through redistricting what they have in terms of current House districts or attempt to squeeze a few more seats out of the process while potentially opening the door to future electoral vulnerability in those races. We'll likely see a little bit of both strategies employed with the net effect that the GOP makes gains but not the extent that some of the doomsday scenarios that made the rounds following the 2010 "shellacking".

We'll have more tomorrow on the impact of these changes on the electoral college in 2012 and beyond, but for now the new map (especially in the sidebar for reference) will suffice.

--
UPDATE: Here's a look at the 2008 results using the 2012-2020 electoral college along with the electoral college spectrum and a look at the potential battleground states for 2012.


Are you following FHQ on Twitter and/or Facebook? Click on the links to join in.

Wednesday, December 23, 2009

The 2009 Census Population Estimates are Now Public

Here's the release from the Census Bureau:

Census Bureau: Texas Gains the Most in Population
Last State Population Estimates Before 2010 Census Counts


Texas gained more people than any other state between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009 (478,000), followed by California (381,000), North Carolina (134,000), Georgia (131,000) and Florida (114,000), according to the latest U.S. Census Bureau estimates

California remained the most populous state, with a July 1, 2009, population of 37 million. Rounding out the top five states were Texas (24.8 million), New York (19.5 million), Florida (18.5 million) and Illinois (12.9 million).

"This is the final set of Census Bureau state population estimates that will be published before the official 2010 Census population counts to be released next December," said Census Bureau Director Robert Groves. "We are focused now on ensuring we get a complete and accurate count in 2010. The census counts will not only determine how many U.S. House seats each state will have but will also be used as the benchmark for future population estimates."

Wyoming showed the largest percentage growth: its population climbed 2.12 percent to 544,270 between July 1, 2008, and July 1, 2009. Utah was next largest, growing 2.10 percent to 2.8 million. Texas ranked third, as its population climbed 1.97 percent to 24.8 million, with Colorado next (1.81 percent to 5 million).

The only three states to lose population over the period were Michigan (-0.33 percent), Maine (-0.11 percent) and Rhode Island (-0.03 percent). The latter two states had small population changes.

Other highlights:

  • Net domestic migration has slowed dramatically in many states in the South and West, including Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, North Carolina, South Carolina and Montana.
  • Several states have negative net domestic migration, which means more people are moving out than moving in. Florida and Nevada, which earlier in the decade had net inflows, are now experiencing new outflows.
  • Louisiana’s July 1, 2009 population, 4.5 million, is up 40,563, or 0.91 percent, from a year earlier.
  • The nation’s population as of July 1, 2009, was 307 million, an increase of 0.86 percent since July 1, 2008.
  • The estimated July 1, 2009, population for Puerto Rico was 4 million, up by 0.32 percent (12,735) from one year earlier.

The population to congressional seat gain/loss report should be up later this week sometime. I'll get an updated map for 2012 up when that information is made available.


Recent Posts:
Tis the Season

Have Things Really Gotten This Bad for Democrats?

Who's Happy with a the Parties' Tentative Outline of a Primary Calendar for 2012?

Wednesday, November 11, 2009

Do Even "Fairly" Drawn Congressional Districts Favor Republicans?

I had a very interesting paper make its way into my inbox today from the Political Methodology section of the American Political Science Association. Jowei Chen and Jonathan Rodden examine the inherent bias against urban -- in this case Democratic -- parties in the redistricting process. As they describe it [pdf]:
"Our central claim is that a substantial, systematic bias against the urban party does not require any intentional manipulation of maps by its opponents. On the contrary, our contention is that under political geography conditions that are quite common in industrialized societies, virtually any districting scheme that privileges compactness and contiguity will produce a bias against the urban party."
In other words, if you were to take an evenly divided state with some number of urban centers and randomly divide the state into congressional or state legislative districts -- while adhering to the court mandated principles of compactness and contiguity -- the party most representative of the urban areas would garner substantially fewer than 50% of the seats in the congressional delegation or in either state legislative chamber. If, for example, you were to take, say, Florida and its basically tied election in 2000 and just randomly draw some districts (Well, not randomly. You'd have to keep the population in each district proportionate to the other districts.), the urban party wouldn't receive 50% of the seats (to approximate 50% of the statewide vote). That party would be more likely to get between 39-42% of the seats.

And in fact, that is what Chen and Rodden have done. They took the Florida 2000 election data and simulated thousands of redistricting plans. The result? Democrats, not through any nefarious plot to pack their partisans into as small a number of districts as possible, were disadvantaged. The bias results from the fact that those higher density population centers so homogeneously Democratic, it takes more less heavily Republican districts spread out in suburban/exurban and rural areas to round out the representation. As such, a state can end up with a tie in terms of the statewide, two-party vote, but end up with the non-urban party taking a significantly higher percentage of the congressional and state legislative seats.

And yes, this assumes there wasn't an overtly partisan redistricting plan put into place in the first place. Stated differently, there wouldn't be any of Elbridge Gerry's salamanders on the map.

This one is well worth your time with a new redistricting cycle on the horizon. Read away. I'll be revisiting some of the issues discussed in this piece in future posts. It really is rich with very pertinent information.


Recent Posts:
If it's a vote on the internet, Ron Paul wins.

Gallup Poll (Nov. '09): Huckabee Continues to Garner the Most Support

40 Passes, 39 Used: What's Wrong with This Again?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Got 2010 Redistricting on the Brain?

Well, you might now after looking at this. FHQ has found just the site to help you while away the time until the census is complete next year: RedistricingTheNation.com.

It is one thing to say you are from the 5th district of North Carolina, but quite another to see your district on the map and how it stacks up on the various measures of compactness compared to other districts. (Remember the rules of redistricting: compactness, contiguity, etc.) For instance, NC-5 borders the infamous NC-12 that, before the courts got a hold of it, stretched all the way from Gaston County (FHQ's home turf), just west of Charlotte, to Durham. And for those who haven't memorized a North Carolina map, that's from the western end of the state all the way to the eastern end. At one point (Again, before the state was forced to redraw the lines.), the district traveled up I-85 and was only as wide as the interstate itself (mind you, where there weren't any houses) in several spots. Even the redrawn district that survives to this day is among the top ten in terms of least compact districts (by all four different measures).

How does your district stack up? NC-5 is a middle of the road district for compactness.

Oh, and if that isn't enough, you can look at state legislative districts and local ones as well. And you can even see who is tasked with drawing the new lines. My classes on redistricting won't be the same.

Hat tip to Joshua Tucker at The Monkey Cage for the link.

A link to this site will be added to the right sidebar section called Data and Other Resources.


Recent Posts:
State of the Race: New Jersey Governor (10/20/09)

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (10/20/09)

New (Well, Old) Rasmussen 2012 GOP Primary Poll: Huckabee's Tops

Thursday, September 10, 2009

FHQ Reading Room (9/10/09): Redistricting

Before we can even consider the electoral college landscape in 2012, we have to clear the redistricting hurdle first. And the chatter on the subject has ramped up as of late.

In Indiana, they're thinking about a less partisan gerrymandered map.

In Texas, two new seats are taking shape for the gains the Lone Star state is likely to enjoy following next year's census. And according to Texas Democratic Party chair, Boyd Ritchie, the DNC may get involved financially in state legislative races next year with redistricting (and the 2003 Republican redraw) in mind.

Two opposite ends of the spectrum there.


Recent Posts:
It's Never too Early for a 2012 (Value Voters) Straw Poll

New Members on the Democratic Party's Rules and Bylaws Committee

State of the Race: Virginia Governor (9/5/09)

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

A Closer Look at the Aftermath of the 2010 Census

[Click to Enlarge]

Late last week I was contacted by Stephanie Simon at the Wall Street Journal inquiring about the 2010 census and its implications. [And I didn't make the cut in her article today. Ouch! Ha!] Ms. Simon had run across FHQ's projected 2012 electoral college map and that served as her jumping off point, but as I was preparing some notes for our call, it occurred to me that the map and its projection create an incomplete picture of the process. Sure, we end up with the final product (the number of electoral votes (congressional seats) a projected number of states will gain or lose), but all the while, we are deprived of the background process. For instance, it is fine to speculate that Texas will gain up to four congressional seats/electoral votes. What, though, will the powers that be in the Lone Star state do with those new seats? That's the piece that's missing. Well, I suppose it isn't so much about what will be done in the gaining and losing states as much as it is about the likelihood of certain changes on the state level. That's what I want to look at a little more today. What outcomes are we likely to see on the state level and what factors affect those outcomes in the first place? The bottom line is that this whole process isn't necessarily as simple as saying, "Texas is a red state, so Texas will see significant Republican gains in Congress and in the electoral college."

Well, Texas may not be the best example.

First, let me note that I'll be focused here on the states projected to gain or lose congressional seats/electoral votes. Technically, all states have the option of redrawing their lines,* win, lose or draw, but I want to look specifically at those states that are forced to redraw their congressional district lines.

Now, let's tackle the redistricting process. No, I'm not going to get into the laws in each state other than to draw a distinction between those states where congressional redistricting takes place in the state legislature and those where the process it filtered through an independent commission. Of those in the latter category, only two are projected to gain (Arizona) or lose (New Jersey) seats. From the latest projection via the Census Bureau (minus Arizona and New Jersey), then, we are left with six states likely to gain and ten states likely to lose seats following next year's canvass. Let's look at the situation on the ground in those states, how that may or may not change in the 2010 elections, and what implications that might have for how news lines in those states are drawn.

State Government Control (in states likely to gain or lose congressional seats following the 2010 Census)
State
+/- seats
Governor's Party
State House Control*
State Senate Control*
2010 Elections**
Arizona
+2Districts drawn by commission
Florida
+2
R
R
R
governor, house
Georgia
+1
R
R
R
governor, house, senate
Illinois
-1
D
D
D
governor, house
Iowa
-1
D
D
D
governor, house
Louisiana
-1
R
D
D
***
Massachusetts-1
D
D
D
governor, house, senate
Michigan
-1
D
D
R
governor, house, senate
Minnesota
-1
R
D
D
governor, house, senate
Missouri
-1
D
R
R
house
Nevada
+1
R
D
D
governor, house
New Jersey
-1Districts drawn by commission
New York
-1
D
D
D
governor, house, senate
Ohio
-2
D
D
R
governor, house
Pennsylvania
-1
D
D
R
governor, house
South Carolina
+1
R
R
R
governor, house
Texas
+4
R
R
R
governor, house
Utah
+1
R
R
R
governor, house
*Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
**Source: National Conference of State Legislatures
***Next round of state level elections: 2011

What we see in the table above is the extent to which there is divided government (both interchamber and interbranch) across the sixteen states most likely to gain or lose seats. And though it is something of a minor point, given the general lack of partisan division throughout the majority of these states (especially the gaining states), we also see what offices are up for grabs in the 2010 midterm elections. For example, all six states projected to gain seats will have gubernatorial elections in 2010, but five of those six have only state House elections and not the entire legislature facing reelection next year. On the flip side, among states most likely to lose seats in Congress, eight of the ten have 2010 gubernatorial elections while half will see the entire legislature up for reelection (with the other half having only state House elections).

Well, what does any of this mean? For starters, it makes the claim that red states are gaining seats and blue states are losing them more then simply facially valid. That is true. But in these cases, the underlying political make up on the state level backs that up as well. Of the gaining states, all but Nevada have unified Republican control. The result? Well, I suspect those state governments are going to draw those new districts in a way that is going to maximize the number of Republican seats in the state's congressional delegation. But that's just a hunch.

The story is different in the states where population has increased the least (or decreased) over the course of the last decade. In only four states (and New York depending on how the Senate situation in the Empire state is progressing), is there unified Democratic government. With only two exceptions (Louisiana and Missouri), all of these states have Democratic governors, but there are varying levels of division between the executive and legislative branches or within the legislature.

The net effect across both types of states is that the gaining states will have a relatively easier time coming up with redistricting plans that are beneficial to the clear majority party in the states (the Republicans). In the losing states, however, there will be more of a discussion (if not all-out, partisan fight) over to how to go about drawing the new districts. After all, some current member of Congress is going to get squeezed out. Who that is, or more importantly what party they are from, will be the result of that "discussion."

Hypothetically, a unified government environment translates into a partisan gerrymander (benefiting the party in control) whereas a state where divided government prevails means that an "I'll scratch your back if you scratch mine" mentality pervades the state legislature. The latter case is more often than not a simple incumbent gerrymander where incumbents are protected over party label. Still, this creates quite a conundrum in those states whose congressional delegations will be trimmed. Which party loses a seat? The state legislative elections in 2010 and the extent to which Democrats remain in control of those chambers will have a large say in the alignment of the post-census electoral college in 2012 (much less the balance of power in the House.)

*If we really want to get technical, all/most states have the option of redrawing their districts whenever they want, whether immediately after the decennial census or not. It wasn't until the 20th century that midstream redistricting (those like Texas' 2003 redistricting plan after Republicans won full control of the state legislature) began to be frowned upon, or at least went out of vogue. It was quite common in the 19th century to see state legislative control change hands and quickly be followed by the implementation of a complete redistricting. For more on this see Carson, et al. (2006).

Edit: Please note that the table heading has been changed to accurately reflect the data contained therein. You have to love taking shortcuts that involve reusing the template from a previous table only to find yourself forgetting to change the original heading. I apologize for any confusion.


Recent Posts:
New Jersey and Virginia: A Diagnostic Comparison of the State of the Race(s)

Don't Forget Your Change Commission Reform Suggestions: Deadline Today

2012 Presidential Race: August PPP Trial Heats In-Depth

Saturday, April 25, 2009

More Texas-less Fun

As long as we're messing with Texas...

Actually, since I put up a Texas-less version of the electoral college map in my post on the Texas frontloading bill last week, S.D. has been after me to do more with the map than just simply remove Texas. So, let's take those reapportionment numbers from FiveThirtyEight and put them into a map. And while we're at it, let's give Utah its fifth electoral vote back and bump the Beehive state up to 6 after the sans Texas reapportionment. [And no, I have absolutely no room to talk. Just take a gander at the comments to the electoral college by congressional districts post.]
[Click Map to Enlarge]

As Nate, said, the GOP is likely to lose ground on the presidential level, but gain at the congressional level without Texas on the map. But, I've got to admit that I can't just swipe those numbers and put them on my own map without making some original contribution of my own.

To wit...

What would happen in two years' time with the post-census reapportionment if Texas had in fact seceded from the United States? I'm glad you asked. It might look a little something like this (dark gray means seat gains, dark red equals losses):

[Click Map to Enlarge]

Based on the Election Data Services data I used to put together these post-2010 census maps, I reallocated each state's congressional seats without the Lone Star state. This reflects the projection based on the population changes witnessed between 2000 and 2008. Arizona, Florida and North Carolina are the beneficiaries of Texas' departure, gaining two seats apiece and the funny thing among the states that lose seats -- the usual Rust Belt suspects -- is that most of them, after gaining from the hypothetical Texas secession, revert to their pre-secession, pre-2010 census numbers. Ohio's back to 20 electoral votes. Pennsylvania's back to 21. New Jersey's back to 15. Michigan's back at 17. New York and Illinois luck out and actually gain a seat over where they are in reality now. The basic trend we are likely to see in 2010 is upheld here with or without Texas. The Sun Belt would gain electoral college clout at the expense of the states in the Rust Belt and stretching into the northeast.

For the sake of comparison...
Instead of the 389-147 win without Texas (pre-census), Obama would have managed a 381-155 victory over John McCain under the electoral college vote distribution of this map.

So no, I didn't resize the states to match their new electoral vote totals, but I think we'll have something to talk about regardless.


Recent Posts:
Nothing to See Here: NY-20 Race Comes to a Close

Obama vs. Four Prospective 2012 GOP Candidates: Huckabee Does Best

Texas Frontloading Bill Goes Public