All but 5 states now have 2010 data.
Four of the five require Block Groups and will be done in a week-ish: KY, MT, OR, RI.
The last is Alaska, which I’m not planning to do. It presents a unique technical problem, which I don’t want to spend the time on unless there is a huge groundswell of interest.
So, the new states are ME, MA, MI, NH, NY, SC and WV.
Note on CA: some of the voting districts are indeed huge. Example: City of Fremont (pop. 84000+) is a single voting district. I went back and checked the raw files from the Census Bureau and this is indeed the case. When I get the other Block Group states done, I will add block groups for CA, too. I will also add block groups for some New England states. NH really seems to need it, but MA does not seem bad.
Remember, you can support this project with a tax-deductible contribution through ProgressiveCongress.org.
Thanks.
Thanks for all of your hard work, once again.
I’ve already started playing around with Michigan. Detroit’s huge population loss in the Census makes the districts look a whole lot different from what the estimates looked like.
But the NYT recently released a really detailed graphic of Census data.
It can be found here: http://projects.nytimes.com/ce…
The data goes all the way down to the Census tract number.
What would be the issue with Alaska?
sorry if being impatient, but may I ask approx. when IL partisan data may be incorporated into Application ? I have (like others here I think) a draft plan for IL and the data would be a God-send … IL is one state where the way Dems draw the lines may really make a difference, and possibly may even be the factor affecting House control next year … thanks !