If Congressional Reapportionment Were Done On Voter Turnout…..

I was thinking about the congressional reapportionment that is to happen in the next few months and what would happen if it was done on voter turnout numbers not on population numbers gathered by the census. I’ve used the totals from each state during the 2008 presidential election, i got the figures from the wikipedia entry on the 2008 presidential election by state, i think they’re fairly reliable (but if anyone has better figures let me know!). After i finished sorting the data i was genuinely surprised. results below the fold.

This is my first diary in ages btw as i usually just read the diaries and entries written by people far more knowledgeable than I, so I apologise for the shitty diary        

Here are the results

Arizona – 8 seats

Alaska – 1 seat

Alabama – 7

Arkansas- 4

California – 45

Connecticut- 5

Colorado- 8

Delaware – 1

Florida – 28

Georgia – 13

Hawaii – 2

Idaho- 2

Iowa – 5

Illinois – 18

Indiana – 9

Kansas – 4

Kentucky – 6

Louisiana – 7

Maine – 2

Massachusetts – 10

Maryland – 9

Michigan – 17

Mississippi – 4

Minnesota – 10

Missouri – 10

Montana – 2

Nebraska – 3

Nevada – 3

North Dakota – 1

North Carolina – 14

New Hampshire – 2

New Mexico – 3

New Jersey – 13

New York – 25

Ohio – 19

Oklahoma – 5

Oregon – 6

Pennsylvania – 20

Rhode Island – 2

South Carolina – 6

South Dakota – 1

Tennessee – 9

Texas – 27

Utah – 3

Vermont – 1

Virginia – 12

Washington – 10

West Virginia -2

Wyoming – 1

Wisconsin – 10

Phew, so the biggest losers are Texas, California and New York and the biggest winners are Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Here are the seats that just about made it and nearly made it. (The number at the end is the priority number, for anyone that hasn’t tinkered about with reapportionment numbers before)

430.   Tennessee 9 306,647

431.    Florida 28 305,904

432.      Texas        27 305,222

433.    Colorado 8 303,850

434.    Michigan 17 303,728

435.   Louisiana 7 302,552

436.  California 46 302,066

437. Connecticut 6 300,662

438.    New York 26 299,691

439.    Illinois 19 298,784

440.      Maine        3 298,496

441.    Virginia 13 298,099

have at it


14 thoughts on “If Congressional Reapportionment Were Done On Voter Turnout…..”

  1. The electoral count:

    171 McCain-367 Obama

    McCain states lose two electoral votes, Obama states gain two. Very little change overall. I wonder if the result would be different if not for high African-American turnout because of Obama. That could have the effect of moving a couple of EV’s out of the south.

  2. and here are 5 random thoughts.

    1. Turnout in 2008 & 2004 for that matter is a function of several factors.  One specific factor is closeness of the race.  In 2008 the Obama campaign had 30,000 volunteers ginning up turnout in Florida while CA was certainly a net loser on volunteers as people left the state as D’s had a huge lead in it.  Ditto for GOP volunteers in Al or TN or WV that were walkovers for McCain.  

    2. The method of voting and ease of registration has a huge impact on turnout. The states with the most aggressive mail in & voter registration systems ie OR-WA-CO WI & MN are big winners under this system.  

    3. My friend you only did 1/2 of the reapportionment game.  You allocated by state-not too hard of a thing to do-but how about within a state.  Its nearly impossible to do as that is certainly not in this App.  Generally speaking turnout is more in suburban areas then urban and then rural is over urban as well.  2008 might be an exception but that’s a general rule.

    4. Yup with the small states in electoral college there is a 10 to 15 vote edge towards the GOP in ECVs.  Your turnout allocation shows that but do an allocation just based on 435 ECVs by backing out the two vote bonus for senators.  Can’t do the numbers this morning but I think it would surprise.

    5. How about 1992-1996-2000-2004?  How do those years come out?  I just wonder if you have time.

  3. I think it is the effect of the unbalanced campaigns. The campaigns find the vote in the swing states, then it is not rare to see less turnout in states like California, New York or Texas, while it is logical to see higher turnout in swing states like Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida or Wisconsin.

  4. I have been looking for a 10-district Minnesota map circa 1931, but I haven’t been able to track one down. Although if I were to guess, there would have been 6 outstate districts, a Minneapolis District, and St. Paul district, and 2 “suburban” districts. Oh how times have changed in a couple generations.

    If Minnesota were to have 10-districts now, there would be 4 outstate-districts (much like the map of the 1990s). A Minneapolis district, and St. Paul district, and 4 suburban districts. I think I have a something to do to kill some time this week.  

Comments are closed.