How Congressional Maps Could Change in 2030 (1 Viewer)

[eman623]

Democrats have long predicted that demographic trends will make it increasingly difficult for Republicans to win at the national level. The reverse may be more true thanks to people fleeing blue states for red ones, and blue states having higher population growth rates.

Due to an undercount in the 2020 census, red states were allotted 2-3 fewer seats than they should have had. That could have been a bone of contention had Harris won the election by 1 or 2 EVs. Fortunately that did not happen and Trump comfortably won both the EV and PV by a comfortable margin.

It would seem that mistake is going to be corrected in 2030. This is the first Census that will not use mass questionnaires mailed out to most American households. Instead they will use a variety of methods, including SS and IRS records. It will hopefully be the most accurate census in US history. And that may not be good news for Democrats.

Here are the states predicted by the Census to lose and gain seats:

Losers
California: -4
New York: -3
Illinois: -2
Oregon, Minnesota, Michigan, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island: -1
Total: -14

Winners
Texas: +3
Florida: +2
Idaho, Utah, Arizona, Tennessee, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia: +1
Total: +14

If you count MI and PA as blue states (even though they went for Trump in 2024), that's -14 EVs lost for the blue states and +14 added to red states. Since the Electoral College is a zero-sum game, that's a potential 28 electoral vote switch from blue states to red states!

If the predicted 2030 census had been in effect in 2024, Trump would have gotten +12 more EVs and the totals for Trump-Harris would be 313-214 instead of 301-226. In other words, a 99 vote difference instead of 75 votes.

How Congressional Maps Could Change in 2030

Newly released data from the Census Bureau points at big shifts in state representation in the House after the 2030 census.

www.brennancenter.org

 

[eman623]

It goes without saying this will also affect apportionment in the House of Representatives, which be about 13% harder for Dems to control with a 218 seat majority.

 

[Phys251]

And the gerrymandering will continue.

 

[Helix]

There will be plenty of gerrymandering.

 

[eman623]

There will be plenty of gerrymandering.

On both sides.

But gerrymandering is not a factor in presidential elections

 

[Helix]

On both sides.

But gerrymandering is not a factor in presidential elections

I'm done with both sideism.

 

[eman623]

I'm done with both sideism.

I can see that.

The catastrophic damage of "woke" politics

While I agree she should have done a better job separating herself from Biden policies. Democrats have never won a national election by running to the far left economically. In fact, every time we have done it, it has amounted to a landslide for Republicans. 1972, 1984 are perfect examples...

debatepolitics.com

I agree that gerrymandering is bad. But it's still not really relevant in this thread which is about presidential politics where gerrymandering is not a factor.

 

[Jay59]

What is not said in the article is that the reapportionment in 2021 was likely understated because of COVID. Data gathering was severely restricted and the final changes were minimal. If the 2020 census was overly cautious, the 2030 census could show almost 20 years of change.

 

[Econ4every1]

313-214 instead of 301-226. In other words, a 99 vote difference instead of 75 votes.

Without actually earning a singular additional popular vote. Only proving that the EC is potentially even more broken than it looks.


Out of 151 million voters, one side got 3 million more votes (1.5%) but won 25% more votes and could have been 28% more votes in your alternative scenario?

Yep that system works, for R's anyway.

 

[eman623]

Without actually earning a singular additional popular vote. Only proving that the EC is potentially even more broken than it looks.
View attachment 67545813

Out of 151 million voters, one side got 3 million more votes (1.5%) but won 25% more votes and could have been 28% more votes in your alternative scenario?

Yep that system works, for R's anyway.

It is working as intended. It was set up this way to insure the president is the president of the entire country, not a few intensely blue states.

 

[Safiel]

It is working as intended. It was set up this way to insure the president is the president of the entire country, not a few intensely blue states.

Political parties did not EVEN ****ING EXIST when the Constitution was drawn up and ratified. So the last bolded portion is laughably wrong.

The Electoral College has worked as intended EXACTLY ONCE. The Election of 1824. It was a disaster.

The founders assumed that the several States would return several regional candidates. Their so called wisdom did not foresee the rise of political parties.

But in 1824, the political parties were in flux. The Federalist Party was disintegrating and the Democratic Republican Party had split into Jackson (Democratic) and Adams (National Republican) factions, with two minor factions associated with former Federalists. None received a majority in the Electoral College and a contingent election was held in the House of Representatives, resulting in the infamous "Corrupt Bargain" that made Adams President.

The founders expected this scenario to occur every election (with the exception of Washington's election), thankfully they were totally lacking in foresight and this scenario has only occurred once.

Fortunately (for principle, not for love of Trump), in 2024 the Electoral Vote affirmed the Popular Vote, which is the best situation we can hope for from our deeply flawed Constitutional method for electing Presidents. And as long as we are stuck with this idiotic system, I continue to hope that the Electoral Vote simply affirms the Popular Vote.

 

[Econ4every1]

It is working as intended. It was set up this way to insure the president is the president of the entire country, not a few intensely blue states.

Except that's not how it works, the candidates focus on 5-7 states every election, the so calles swing states, so we're governed by the whims of those 7 states.

 

[eman623]

Except that's not how it works, the candidates focus on 5-7 states every election, the so calles swing states, so we're governed by the whims of those 7 states.

That's exactly how it works. And it's not always the same states. Ohio and Florida used to be swing states. Even California was competitive once upon a time

There have always been and will always be states that are close. That's where campaigns will focus their attention.

 

[Econ4every1]

And it's not always the same states

Irrelevent, each election it's still just a handful of states, regardless of which states it is. Regardless, giving greater representation to some people over others is wrong, period. Peoples votes should all count the same.

 

[eman623]

Irrelevent, each election it's still just a handful of states, regardless of which states it is.

Every state is potentially a swing state.

Regardless, giving greater representation to some people over others is wrong, period. Peoples votes should all count the same.

They do. And states' votes count proportional to their representation in Congress.

And red states are going to have greater representation based on their growing populations.

 

[Econ4every1]

And red states are going to have greater representation based on their growing populations.

No one should have greater representation than anyone else, period, full stop.

 

[eman623]

No one should have greater representation than anyone else, period, full stop.

No one does. Full stop.

 

[Econ4every1]

No one does. Full stop.

And yet, that's exactly what the EC allows.

 

[eman623]

And yet, that's exactly what the EC allows.

Everyone's vote counts the same as everyone else's.

 

[Econ4every1]

Everyone's vote counts the same as everyone else's.

It does not. Every state get's a minimum of 3 representees. If a state had 3 people in it it would still get 3 representees and 3 EC votes, that would be 1 per person (yes, this is extreme and not real world, the point here is to illuminate the problem clearly, then work back to reality). So take a state like WY, with a little more than 500k people. If we divide the number of people by their representation in the EC we get 1 EC vote per 166,666k people. CA on the other hand has 38 million people and 52 EC votes, that's 1 EC vote per 731k people, thus the 3 electoral votes in WY have much greater influence than EC votes in CA.

All the states to the right of that line, their citizens have greater representation and their EC votes have greater affect than those to the left of the line.

 

[eman623]

It does not. Every state get's a minimum of 3 representees. If a state had 3 people in it it would still get 3 representees and 3 EC votes, that would be 1 per person (yes, this is extreme and not real world, the point here is to illuminate the problem clearly, then work back to reality). So take a state like WY, with a little more than 500k people. If we divide the number of people by their representation in the EC we get 1 EC vote per 166,666k people. CA on the other hand has 38 million people and 52 EC votes, that's 1 EC vote per 731k people, thus the 3 electoral votes in WY have much greater influence than EC votes in CA.

All the states to the right of that line, their citizens have greater representation and their EC votes have greater affect than those to the left of the line.

View attachment 67546053

I know how the EC works. It doesn't mean some people have greater representation than others. The US is a federal republic of 50 sovereign states. People get a vote and states get a vote to elect the president.

But if you think it does, then do you think the US Senate also allows some people to have greater representation? Each state gets 2 senators regardless of its population.

 

[Econ4every1]

But if you think it does, then do you think the US Senate also allows some people to have greater representation? Each state gets 2 senators regardless of its population.

Yes, absolutely.

 

[eman623]

Yes, absolutely.

And what would you do about that?

 

[Econ4every1]

And what would you do about that?

The Senate is an unfortunate reality that is an indelible part of US politics, but as proof that most R's only enjoy the Senate as a body as long is it works for them, I give you DC and Preto Rico. Two places that would probably already be states if it weren't for the fact that R's fear it would result in 4 more Senate seats for Dems.

That said, the best way to deal with the Senate is ensure that everyone's vote nationally counts for same as every other vote, not tilted by state. I understand the idea of the US as a republic when it began, It made sense, and I'm not that broken up about calling it a republic now (though I get annoyed when people complain; "it's not a democracy it's a republic!"). A republic is a form of represenitive democracy. Anyway, the US was a huge country in the early days and it was trying something new (the idea that it was a government of the people). States wanted a system that created self contained 'local' (local here meaning the state in question) government's that could survive in the event the US as a nation didn't work out, but those days are over, we're all Americans where 200 years ago people would have been more likely to associate with their state. Of course this was in a time when most people were unlikely to travel more than 50 miles from home their whole lives.

And let me say, that I understand the fears that rural Americans have about the more liberal cultures that tend to exist in and around the nations largest cities. Around 80% of people in the US live in Urban areas and people in more rural areas are right to fear the encroachment on their culture and traditions. That said, we live in a time where compromise, something I believe is a pillar this nation was founded on, is less and less viable. D's need to do more to respect rural traditions and R's need to tolerate the more unsettling progressive culture (notice I said tolerate not accept).

As a person who tends to lean slightly more to the left (though I can agree with Conservative views and disagree with far left views) I for one think that as a nation we need both moderate Liberals and moderate Conservatives making up the base and the far left and far right are the minority, but most importantly, that both sides (especially the middle) can find compromise and both sides can reject bad faith arguments, on their side as much as the other.

Apologies /rant off.

 

[eman623]

The Senate is an unfortunate reality that is an indelible part of US politics, but as proof that most R's only enjoy the Senate as a body as long is it works for them, I give you DC and Preto Rico. Two places that would probably already be states if it weren't for the fact that R's fear it would result in 4 more Senate seats for Dems.

It's a little more complicated than that. R's have suggested rolling DC back into VA so it can be represented in Congress. D's tend to ignore that option because of the fact it would not result in 2 more Senate seats for Dems.

As for PR, there are reason for and against it being a state. But yes, there is the fact that it would change the balance in the Senate. In past times this issue was addressed by bringing in pairs of states. Re the Missouri Compromise that brought in ME and MO, or the more recent admission of right-leaning AK and left-leaning HI. Again D's ignore this because the only thing they care about is the political advantage, not whether PR should be a state or not.

That said, the best way to deal with the Senate is ensure that everyone's vote nationally counts for same as every other vote, not tilted by state.

I don't know what that means. Are you suggesting changes to the Senate or not? And if not, then why should there be changes to the EC? I know the arguments about faster communications, but I think that's just window dressing. The fact is it would help your side and that's why you want it. If the EC helped your side, then we might be having this same discussion but using the other's playbook.

As a person who tends to lean slightly more to the left (though I can agree with Conservative views and disagree with far left views) I for one think that as a nation we need both moderate Liberals and moderate Conservatives making up the base and the far left and far right are the minority, but most importantly, that both sides (especially the middle) can find compromise and both sides can reject bad faith arguments, on their side as much as the other.

Apologies /rant off.

So glad to see you are rejecting bad faith arguments. Tell me more about what R's fear and what we enjoy only so long as it works for us.