• A letter was sent to the Director of the U.S. Bureau of the Census, and copied to the Secretary of Commerce, with respect to the Disclosure Avoidance Program (DAP).
• This program is currently being tested, evaluated, and also operationalized for its first application to the block-level datasets to be delivered to the states fore the purposes of apportionment. These datasets, one per state, include one record per census block and represent the lowest level for which the Bureau tabulates data that is generally available to the public. These so-called PL94-171 datasets are the critical datasets for most entities that undertake state and local districting projects.
• As it is currently envisioned, theses datasets would not include the counts but numbers adjusted to "to inject a precisely calibrated amount of noise into the data to control the privacy risk of any calculation or statistic". (See source).
• The main reason for this is that the Bureau is statutorily obligated to protect Personally Identifiable Information (PII) under Title 13. The Bureau apparently believes that they are thus required to adjust the counts, as well as the characteristic data, to prevent such disclosure.
• However, it appears that the current plan blurs the line between the constitutional rationale for an actual Enumeration and their statutory obligations as a national statistical agency with what the Bureau views as the only way to fulfill their concerns over privacy.
• The letter addresses these concerns and inquires whether the current version of DAP will allow states to have the best population data available to them so that they may make a good-faith effort at equality amongst districts.

Dec 30, 2019: APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020--A, BASED UPON 2019 ESTIMATES WITH PROJECTIONS (Prelim, to be supplemented.)

• In the last release before the official counts for the 2020 Apportionment, today the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2019. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census.
• The Bureau does not make projections so researchers are left to apply their own perspective to arrive at something that might reflect shifts after the 2020 Census. Projections simply reflect different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade. Of course, the record date for these estimates is only nine months before the record date for the census.
• As the POLIDATA projections rely upon the most recent estimates, the projected shifts amongst states is likely to be consistent with previous projections for this decade.
• The final counts for apportionment of the U.S. House will be released by December 31, 2020. Those numbers should include numbers for overseas personnel who would be included in the apportionment but not in the redistricting phase of the apportionment process. That apportionment would be effective for elections held from 2022 through 2030. The Electoral College for the 2020 election will still be held using the current 2010 apportionment.
• Based upon the POLIDATA projections using slightly different factors, but without any estimate for overseas personnel:
  • There could be 17 states affected with the number of states projected as GAINING seats at 7, and the number of states LOSING seats at 10.
  • The biggest gainer would be TX with +3 to 39 seats; and FL which would be +2 to 29 seats.
  • The other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CO to 8; MT* to 2; NC to 14; and OR to 6.
  • The losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; CA* to 52; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
  • The above nets reflect no change over the projections from 2018.
  • Both MT* and CA* decreased in their strength for a seat with MT still above the cutoff by a few thousand persons but CA below the cutoff by several hundred thousand.
• Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons can be estimated.
  • The closest seats just ABOVE the cutoff are: TX in 433; MT in 434; FL in 435.
  • The closest seats just BELOW the cutoff are: AL at 436; MN at 437; OH at 438.
• In general, the most recent population trends follow the projections based upon previous year's estimates. Based upon the 2019 estimates alone, i.e., if apportionment were done on these numbers without any projection of overseas personnel, there would be 7 states gaining seats and 8 states losing seats. Gainers: AZ, CO, FL, NC, OR, and TX. Losers: CA, IL, MI, MN, NY, PA, RI, and WV.
• Comparing the 2019 estimates with the projections indicates the following changes:
  • AL is net +0 based upon the 2019 estimates but would be -1 with the projections.
  • FL is net +1 based upon the 2019 estimates but would be +2 with the projections.
  • OH is net +0 based upon the 2019 estimates but would be -1 with the projections.
  • TX is net +2 based upon the 2019 estimates but would be +3 with the projections.
  • Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
• See state-level maps at the census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 19, 2018: A--APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020, BASED UPON 2018 ESTIMATES WITH PROJECTIONS (Prelim, to be supplemented.)

• Today the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2019. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census.
• The Bureau does not make projections so researchers are left to apply their own perspective to arrive at something that might reflect shifts after the 2020 Census. Projections simply reflect different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade. Of course, the census will be held only nine-months following the date of these estimates.
• There will be only one additional release of state-level population estimates, in December of 2019, before the 2020 Census which will be held as of April 1, 2020. The final counts for apportionment of the U.S. House will be released by December 31, 2020. Those numbers may include numbers for overseas personnel who would be included in the apportionment but not in the redistricting portion of the apportionment process. The apportionment would be effective for elections held from 2022 through 2030. The Electoral College for the 2020 election will still be held using the current 2010 apportionment.
• Based upon these projections using slightly different factors:
  • There could be 17 states affected with the number of states projected as GAINING seats at 7, and the number of states LOSING seats at 10.
  • The biggest gainer would be TX* with +3 to 39 seats; and FL which would be +2 to 29 seats.
  • The other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CO to 8; MT to 2; NC to 14; and OR to 6. MT is still very close.
  • The losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; CA* to 52; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
  • TX* is a change over previous projections with more comfort for +3.
  • CA* is a change over previous projections with approximately 200k fewer persons than needed for 53 seats.
• Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons can be estimated.
  • The closest seats just ABOVE the cutoff are: NY in 433; TX in 434; MT in 435.
  • The closest seats just BELOW the cutoff are: MN at 436; CA at 437; AL at 438.
• In general, the most recent population trends follow the projections based upon previous year's estimates. Based upon the 2018 estimates alone, i.e., if apportionment were done on these numbers, there would be 6 states gaining seats and 7 states losing seats. TX would gain 2 seats but the remaining 12 states would gain or lose 1 seat. Gainers: AZ*, CO, FL, NC, OR, and TX. Losers: IL, MI, MN, NY, PA, RI*, and WV. (AZ* and RI* are new to this list compared to the 2017 estimates.)
• Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
• See state-level maps at the census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Mar 29, 2018: CENSUS 2020, THE CITIZENSHIP QUESTION

• The U.S. Bureau of the Census today released a press kit that includes all the questions to be used in the 2020 Census and the ACS.
  • The Commerce Department, which includes the U.S. Bureau of the Census, recently announced the reinstatement of a question on citizenship status for the full count of the 2020 Census.
  • See Commerce press release and Commerce letter.
  • This follows a request from the Justice Department in December of 2017.
  • Contrary to what some have indicated, this has not been promoted by DOJ or Commerce as something that would require apportionment of the U.S. House by citizen population rather than total population. It is clear that any actual apportionment of the U.S. House will be conducted, as it always has been, on the basis of total population, including non-citizens. The rationale for the question on the full count questionnaire is related to the enforcement of the federal Voting Rights Act and districting plans.
  • Citizen voting age population (CVAP) has been referred to in voting rights litigation for the past two decades but inasmuch as the lowest level at which it is currently available is the block group, data analysts are left to either formulating new plans with this as the unbreakable geography or allocating it to the census blocks.
  • "Block groups are statistical divisions of census tracts and generally contain between 600 and 3,000 people." See census defintion.
  • However, the census case decided in 1999 Department of Commerce vs. U.S. House of Representatives (98-404) does not provide much solace to those using CVAP numbers, at least for congressional districts which are required to have zero tolerance for population deviation, thus requiring split block groups if not blocks*.
  • Speaking for the U.S. Supreme Court, Justice O'Connor's opinion included the following: "...the fact that the Members of Congress voting on the bill read the text of the statute, as do we, to prohibit the use of sampling in determining the population for apportionment purposes..."
  • From the perspective of previous opinions of the Court apportionment purposes includes the redistricting phase of the apportionment process. "When analyzed in the context of this general understanding of apportionment, it is reasonable to view the 13 U.S.C. §195 prohibition on the use of sampling for the purposes of apportionment, as applying with equal force to the apportioning of representatives among the states (apportionment) and to the revision of representation districts (redistricting)." See an amicus brief filed in the 1998 case.
  • * edited to clarify a not so obvious typo. Text had been "requiring split blocks" now "split block groups if not blocks."
• As an aid to understanding the issues, provided herein are maps that help illustrate the distribution of non-citizens and how political power is affected by their presence in states. This is accomplished via scenarios as to how a hypothetical apportionment based upon citizenship would differ from that based upon population.
  • By way of background, the 2000 Census included the citizenship question on the so-called long form. This meant that the results were based upon a sample that was generally about 1 of every 6 households but was not available by census block.
  • With the advent of the American Community Survey (ACS) in the mid 2000s the question moved to that survey instrument. There are currently two releases of the ACS information each year, a 1-year and a 5-year release.
  • As an example, in September of 2017 the Bureau released the 1-year data for the 2016 ACS and in December it released the 5-year data for the same 2016 ACS. The difference between these two datasets is the size and timing of the samples. The 1-year data contains only responses collected during 2016; the 5-year data contains responses collected during the previous 5 years: 2016-2015-2014-2013-2012. Thus the 5-year release has a midpoint of 2014 but it provides information at lower levels of geography. By combining the 5 years into one dataset the coverage is only slightly less than the coverage from the long form last used in the 2000 Census, about 1 of 7 households.
  • To make this information available for the upcoming 2021/2022 round of redistricting, for congressional, legislative, or local representational plans, the earliest it would normally be released would be in September of 2021 in the 2020 ACS 1-year release. However, the 1-year release only includes the most populous areas; while it does include all congressional districts, it does not even include all counties across the nation.
  • Thus a 5-year dataset is needed and likely one with a midpoint of 2020, to accomodate for a merger of the geography based upon the 2010 and 2020 Censuses. This would mean the 2022 ACS 5-year release (2022-2021-2020-2019-2018), and the earliest that such sampled information for the current lowest level of block group would be available would be December of 2023. Thus, it would be too late for new maps and still only be available by block group.
  • In addition, using the same schedule as currently exists, the special tabulations with the demographic breaks used during redistricting for race and Hispanic Origin, means that it would not be available for several months later, probably January or February of 2024, and again, only to the block group level.
  • Having it on the full count census form means that it could be made available by census block in the so-called PL94-171 Legislative Data for Redistricting sets delivered on a flow basis from January through March of 2021.
• See more discussion and state-level maps at the census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 20, 2017: A--APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020, BASED UPON 2017 ESTIMATES WITH PROJECTIONS (Prelim, to be supplemented.)

• Today the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2017. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census.
• The Bureau does not make projections so researchers are left to apply their own perspective to arrive at something that might reflect shifts after the 2020 Census. Projections simply reflect different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade.
• In general, the most recent population trends follow the projections based upon last year's estimates. Based upon these projections using slightly different factors:
  • There could be 15 or 16 states affected with the number of states GAINING seats at either 6 or 7, and the number of states LOSING seats at 9.
  • The biggest gainer would be TX with either +2 or +3 to 38 or 39 seats; and FL which would be +2 to 29 seats.
  • The other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CO to 8; NC to 14; and OR to 6. MT could gain 1 to be 2 seats.
  • The losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
  • In comparison to the projections made last year on the 2016 estimates (see below) there were only a few differences though the rank of states for the last seats may have changed. Based upon one of the three scenarios, MT would gain a seat to 2 at the expense of TX which would only gain 2 seats to be at 38.
• Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons can be estimated; for example, in comparison to the projections based on last years numbers there are shifts such as TX decreasing its strength for 39 seats; CA increasing its strength for 53 seats; and RI slighty increasing it strength to remain at 2 seats.
• Based solely on the 2017 estimates, i.e., if the apportionment were done now, changes over the 2016 estimates put CO and TX gaining strength and NY and WV losing strength to the point of flipping one seat each.
• Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
• See state-level maps at the census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 21, 2016: A--APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020, BASED UPON 2016 ESTIMATES WITH PROJECTIONS

• Yesterday the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2016. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census. Projections simply reflect different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade. Based upon these projections:
  • The number of states GAINING seats is 6, the number of states LOSING seats is 9.
  • The biggest gainer would be TX with +3 to 39 seats and FL would be +2 to 29 seats.
  • The other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CO to 8; NC to 14; and OR to 6.
  • The losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
  • In comparison to the projections made last year on the 2015 estimates (see below) there were no differences though the rank of states for the last seats may have changed.
• Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons can be estimated; for example, in comparison to the projections based on last years numbers there are shifts such as AZ increasing its strength for 10 seats; CA decreasing its strength for 53 seats; MT increasing its strength for 2 seats; and RI decreasing its strength for 2 seats.
• Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
• See state-level maps at the census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Feb 19, 2016: ELECTION CALENDAR for 2016: PRESIDENTIAL, CONGRESSIONAL, and STATE NOMINATING EVENTS

• This space will include a list of events on the political calendar for 2016, i.e., events in which voters may participate in the nomination of candidates.
• In some states multiple events may be involved before the delegates are finally selected for the Presidential races. Election Day is Novermber 8, 2016.
  
• Many states, especially those in the middle primary months of May and June, combine their presidential delegate process with their state primary.
• A few oddities exist, including court orders with respect to the election dates in NY with respect to the federal UOCAVA and MOVE acts.
• About a dozen states allow for nomination, especially by minor parties, through conventions which may be optional and for which dates may not yet be known.
• For an overview on the topic of state primaries see this WikiPedia link
• States with or without court involvement have changed the primary system over recent decades. In all but a handful of primaries the events are partisan in nature with variations in CA and WA.
• Just as LA has its own set of laws, it has a hybrid conditional primary/general election system in which the first election (Nov) may elect a candidate or require a second election (Dec).
• Caucuses and conventions, and primates in MS are party events and results from these may be difficult to locate and unofficial.
  
• Links for information may be located at the following sites which may be updated throughout the election cycle:
  • FEC: Federal Election Commission
  • NCSL: National Conference of State Legislatures
  • TGP: The Green Papers
  • BP: BallotPedia Presidential Candidates 2016
  • Current Status of Presidential Races: New York Times
  • Yearly calendar: Time and Date
  • Events listed below are primaries unless indicated otherwise: * caucus or convention.
  • DA--Democrats Abroad; RO--Republicans Overseas (no delegates); AS--American Samoa; GU--Guam; MP--Northern Mariana Islands; PR--Puerto Rico; VI--Virgin Islands
  
  
  • JUNE
    • (6/04 Sat): VI--D*; PR--D*
    • (6/07 Tue): CA, MT, NJ, NM, ND--D*, SD
    • (6/14 Tue): DC--D*
    • (6/07 Tue): CA, MT, NJ, NM, SD
  • MAY
    • (5/03 Tue): IN, GU--D*
    • (5/10 Tue): NE--R, KY--D, WV
    • (5/17 Tue): OR
    • (5/24 Tue): WA--R
  • APRIL
    • (4/05 Tue): WI
    • (4/19 Tue): NY
    • (4/26 Tue): CT, DE, MD, PA, RI
  • MARCH
    • (3/01 Tue): AL, AK--R*, AR, CO*, GA, MA, MN*, OK, TN, TX, VT, VA, WY--R*, AS--D*
    • (3/05 Sat): KS, KY--R*, LA, ME--R*, NE--R*
    • (3/06 Sun): ME--D*, PR--R*
    • (3/08 Tue): HI--R*, ID, MI, MS, DA--D*
    • (3/12 Sat): DC--R*, GU--R*, MP--D*
    • (3/15 Tue): FL, IL, MO, NC, OH, MP--R*
    • (3/19 Sat): VI--R*
    • (3/22 Tue): AZ, ID--D*, UT*, AS--R*
    • (3/26 Sat): AK--D*, HI--D*, WA--D*
  • FEBRUARY
    • (2/01 Mon): IA*
    • (2/09 Tue): NH
    • (2/20 Sat): NV--D*, SC, WA--R*
    • (2/23 Tue): NV--R*
    • (2/27 Sat): SC--D*
• POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 24, 2015: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE SUPERLATIVES, BASED UPON 2015 ESTIMATES

  • In the recent release of the state-level population estimates through July 1, 2015 the Bureau also released the components that were used to derive the overall estimates. Some state-level maps illustrating the rank for each state (and DC) for several of these factors can be located at the census portal document link page.
  • States with the highest/lowest ranks for the following:
    • These are expressed as the rate per thousand persons:
    • Birth rate: UT (17.3) and NH (9.5)
    • Death rate: WV (11.8) and UT (5.3)
    • Natural Increase rate: UT (12.1) and WV (-0.5)
    • Foreign Migration rate: HI (7.1) and MT (0.7)
    • Domestic Migration rate: ND (13.3) and AK (-10)
    • Net Migration rate: FL (16.5) and AK (-6.9)
    • Net Growth rate: ND (22.8) and WV (-2.3)
    • These are expressed in rounded number of persons:
    • Population Change: TX (490,000) and IL (-22,000)
    • Population Estimate: CA (39,100,000) and WY (586,000)
    • Other notes:
    • States in which the Natural Increase rate is negative (Births are less than Deaths): ME and WV.
    • States in which the Net Growth rate is negative (Natural Increase plus Net Migration): ME, VT, CT, IL, WV, MS, and NM.
    • States in which the Net Migration rate is positive (Domestic is greater than Foreign): ND, DE, NC, SC, GA, FL, TN, OK, TX, AZ, CO, ID, MT, NV, UT, OR, and WA.
    • Top ten states for population: CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC, and MI.
    • The annual race for the number 3 spot between FL and NY now has FL ahead of NY by 475,000.
    • Another race is for the being in the top ten. Currently, MI (at 10) is 1.0 million ahead of NJ (at 11).
    • The least populous 'states' are WY (586k at 51), VT (626k at 50), DC (672 at 49), AK (738 at 48), and ND (757 at 47).
• POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 23, 2015: B--APPORTIONMENT OPTIONS BASED UPON 2015 ESTIMATES

  • Yesterday's population estimates were reviewed with respect to what an apportionment of the U.S. House would be based solely upon those estimates.
  • Two variables are now provided that take this review further.
    1. The first is simply using the estimates of the Voting Age Population (VAP) released yesterday.
    2. The second uses this VAP raw number and applies the ratio of Citizen Voting Age (CVA) as a Percent of VAP (CAPV) from the most recent American Community Survey (ACS).
  • The summary is that numerous seats would shift under either measure, though this is a strictly hypothetical shift based upon the most recent raw numbers.
    1. Using VAP, 3 states would gain and 3 states would lose over the current apportionment made on the basis of the 2010 Census.
       • Gainers would be: FL +1, NC +1, and OR +1.
       • Losers would be: IL -1, MN -1, and TX -1.
    2. Using CVA, 9 states would gain seats and 4 states would lose seats.
       • Gainers would be: FL +1, LA, +1, MO +1, MT +1, NC +1, OH +1, OR +1, PA +1, and VA +1.
       • Losers would be: CA -5, IL -1, NY -1, and TX -2.
    3. Note that in most of these states the shift would only be one seat under either measure. However, two states would lose more than 1 seat under the Citizen Voting Age measure
       • TX would lose 2 seats and CA would lose 5 seats.
  • These thoughts are even more relevant to current discussions than in the past due to the current case recently argued at the SCOTUS earlier this month. Evenwel v. Abbott Even though the basis for apportionment of the U.S. House generally has a different legal foundation (Article I) than apportionment for state legislatures (14th Amendment) both raise similar issues with respect to the differentials between whether districts are supposed to be crafted for equal representation of all residents, for equal weight for all votes cast in elections, or for some hybrid purpose that considers both views.
  • See state-level maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 23, 2015: A--COMPONENTS OF CHANGE FOR 2015 ESTIMATES

  • Several tables and state-level maps are now available with respect to some of the elements of the estimates released yesterday.
  • See state-level maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 22, 2015: C--APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020, BASED UPON 2015 ESTIMATES

  • Today the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2015. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census. Projections simply reflect different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade. Based upon these projections:
    • The number of states GAINING seats is 6, the number of states LOSING seats is 9.
    • The biggest gainer would be TX with +3 to 39 seats and FL would be +2 to 29 seats.
    • The other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CO to 8; NC to 14; and OR to 6.
    • The losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
    • In comparison to the projections made last year on the 2014 estimates (see below) the only real change was CA now stays at 53 but FL gains 2 seats.
  • Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons would include AZ+, FL+, and CA-, MT-.
  • Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
  • See state-level maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 22, 2015. B--CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ESTIMATES FOR 2015

  • By using the recent state-level estimates for the post-2010 census estimates it is possible to get a general sense as to which states might gain or lose a seat or more in the apportionment of 2020.
  • Of course, these are simply to provide a very general idea based upon the assumption that the apportionment would be made upon these numbers alone, without any projection out and without any additional persons for federal overseas personnel.
  • Were these estimates used to apportion seats in the U.S. House shifts over the actual apportionment made in December of 2010 would be as listed below:
    • STATES LOSING SEATS:
      1. IL would lose 1 seat, dropping from 18 to 17
      2. MI would lose 1 seat, dropping from 14 to 13
      3. MN would lose 1 seat, dropping from 8 to 7
      4. PA would lose 1 seat, dropping from 18 to 17
      
      
    • STATES GAINING SEATS:
      1. FL would gain 1 seat, increasing from 27 to 28
      2. NC would gain 1 seat, increasing from 13 to 14
      3. OR would gain 1 seat, increasing from 5 to 6
      4. TX would gain 1 seat, increasing from 36 to 37
  • Note, compared to the previous year's annual estimates these shifts confirm the status of MN, NC, PA and TX but add new shifts for IL, MI, FL and OR.
  • Based upon the 2015 estimates: Made the cut: OR is now ranked at 435, with an extra 400 persons. Lost the cut: MI is now ranked at 436, falling short by 1,000 persons.
  • Several other states were fairly close to the cutoff of the 435th seat (actually only 385 are apportioned under the formula). Comparing the ranks in the December 2010 apportionment with the July 1, 2015 estimates: (Note that there are some difference in the notations here compared to previous summaries.)
    • ABOVE the cutoff for the 2015 estimates:
      1. Seat 431: RI at 2, with a 16,000 person surplus.
      2. Seat 432: CA at 53, with a 532,000 person surplus.
      3. Seat 433: NC at 14, with a 120,000 person surplus.
      4. Seat 434: FL at 28, with a 48,000 person surplus.
      5. Seat 435: OR at 6, with a 400 person surplus.
      
      
    • BELOW the cutoff for the 2015 estimates:
      1. Seat 436: MI at 14, with a 1,000 person deficit.
      2. Seat 437: IL at 18, with a 8,000 person deficit.
      3. Seat 438: MN at 8, with a 15,000 person deficit.
      4. Seat 439: TX at 38, with a 113,000 person deficit.
      5. Seat 440: PA at 18, with a 65,000 person deficit.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 22, 2015. A--STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2015.

  • The Census Bureau estimates that the national resident population has increased 12.6 million persons (4.10%) since the July 1, 2010 estimates.
  • (The comparable rate of growth for the same timeframe in the previous decade (2000 to 2005) was initially estimated to be 5.33%.)
  • National totals for Total Resident Population (50 states+DC):
    • Jul 1, 2015 Estimates: 321,418,820
    • Jul 1, 2010 Estimates: 309,346,863
    • (Apr 1, 2010 Census: 308,745,538)
  • States with the largest percentage gains since 2010:
    • ND +12.5%
    • DC +11.7%
    • TX +9.2%
    • CO +8.5%
    • UT +8.4%
  • States with the smallest gains or losses since 2010:
    • WV -0.5%
    • VT +0.1%
    • ME +0.1%
    • IL +0.2%
    • RI +0.3%
  • States closest to the national average rate since 2010:
    • OK +4.26%
    • US +4.10%
    • TN +4.00%
  • Historical comparisons for this point in the decade, based upon revisions made after the annual releases.
    • 2000 to 2005, 14.2 million, or 5.0%
    • 1990 to 1995, 14.0 million, or 5.6%
    • 1980 to 1985, 12.2 million, or 5.4%
    • 1970 to 1975, 12.2 million, or 6.0%
    • 1960 to 1965, 13.6 million, or 7.5%
    • 1950 to 1955, 13.6 million, or 9.0%
    • 1940 to 1945, 7.8 million, or 5.9%
    • 1930 to 1935, 4.2 million, or 3.4%
    • 1920 to 1925, 9.4 million, or 8.8%
    • 1910 to 1915, 8.1 million, or 8.8%
    • 1900 to 1905, 7.7 million, or 10.2%
  • By ranking all states by the size of the total estimates the concentration of population among the states can be calculated.
    • The top 33% reside in 4 states: CA, TX, FL, and NY.
    • The top 50% reside in 9 states: the ones above plus IL, PA, OH, GA, and NC.
    • The top 75% reside in 20 states.
    • The top 90% reside in 31 states.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 29, 2014: COMPONENTS OF CHANGE, BASED UPON 2014 ESTIMATES

  • In the recent release of the state-level population estimates through July 1, 2014 the Bureau also released the components that were used to derive the overall estimates. Some state-level maps illustrating the rank for each state (and DC) for several of these factors can be located at the census portal document link page.
  • States with the highest/lowest ranks for the following:
    • These are expressed as the rate per thousand persons:
    • Birth rate: UT (17.6) and NH (9.3)
    • Death rate: WV (11.7) and UT (5.2)
    • Natural Increase rate: UT (12.3) and WV (-0.6)
    • Foreign Migration rate: HI (6.1) and WV (0.6)
    • Domestic Migration rate: ND (12.2) and AK (-13.8)
    • Net Migration rate: ND (14.0) and AK (-10.9)
    • Net Growth rate: ND (20.7) and WV (-1.5)
    • These are expressed in rounded number of persons:
    • Population Change: TX (450,000) and IL (-10,000)
    • Population Estimate: CA (38,805,000) and WY (585,000)
    • Other notes:
    • Top ten states for population: CA, TX, FL, NY, IL, PA, OH, GA, NC, and MI.
    • The annual race for the number 3 spot between FL and NY now has FL ahead of NY by 150,000.
    • There are two states in which the Natural Increase rate is negative: ME and WV.
    • There are six states in which the Net Growth rate is negative: VT, CT, WV, IL, NM, and AK.
    • There are 15 states in which Domestic Migration is greater than Foreign Migration: AZ, CO, DE, FL, ID, MT, NV, NC, ND, OR, SC, TN, TX, and WA.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 24, 2014: B--EFFECT OF APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020 ON 2024 ELECTORAL COLLEGE

  • As an additional review of the potential impact of the projections for 2020, the impact of how the shift in seats would affect the Electoral College follows. This review is based upon yesterday's release by the Bureau of the Census of the annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2014.
  • Overall while it might appear that a +3 for TX would be great news for Republicans, shifts in other states are likely to offset this, at least based upon the 2012 results. Nevertheless, more Obama states would lose a seat by the current projections than gain and the net gain for Romney states is a positive.
  • The 27 states voting for Obama in 2012 decrease by a net of 3 votes, from 332 to 329.
  • The 24 states voting for Romney in 2012 increase by a net of 3 votes, from 206 to 209.
  • The 2016 and 2020 elections will still be held under the Electoral College allocation from the 2010 Census.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 24, 2014: A--APPORTIONMENT FOR 2020, BASED UPON 2014 ESTIMATES

  • Yesterday the Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2014. These have been projected by POLIDATA through 2020 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2020 census. The projections are simply different scenarios based upon the assumptions that the most recent growth trends would continue throughout the decade. Based upon these projections:
    • The number of states losing seats is 9, the number of state gaining is 7.
    • The biggest gainer would be TX with +3 to 39 seats.
    • The 6 other gainers (all +1 seat): AZ to 10; CA to 54; CO to 8; FL to 28; NC to 14; and OR to 6.
    • The 9 losing states (all -1 seat): AL to 6; IL to 17; MI to 13; MN to 7; NY to 26; OH to 15; PA to 17; RI to 1; and WV to 2.
  • Based upon different scenarios the states closest to the cutoff points in terms of raw persons would include AL, MT, OR and RI.
  • Again, these projections do not account for any adjustment that would apply to the actual apportionment population such as the overseas population.
  • See state-level maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 23, 2014. B--CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ESTIMATES FOR 2014

  • By using the recent state-level estimates for the post-2010 census estimates it is possible to get a general sense as to which states might gain or lose a seat or more in the apportionment of 2020.
  • Of course, these are simply to provide a very general idea based upon the assumption that the apportionment would be made upon these numbers alone, without any projection out and without any additional persons for federal overseas personnel.
  • Were these estimates used to apportion seats in the U.S. House, there would have been only two shifts over the actual apportionment made in December of 2010.
    • MN would lose 1 seat, dropping from 8 to 7
    • PA would lose 1 seat, dropping from 18 to 17
      
    • NC would gain 1 seat, increasing from 13 to 14
    • TX would gain 1 seat, increasing from 36 to 37
  • Note, compared to the previous year's annual estimates these shifts confirm for MN and NC but add PA and TX.
  • (In fact, following the actual apportionment in December 2010, two states were flipped, with NC (-16,000) losing out to MN (+9,000) for the last seat.)
  • Based upon the 2014 estimates: MI is now ranked at 435, with an extra 48,000 persons. PA is now ranked at 436, falling short by 63,000 persons.
  • Several other states were fairly close to the cutoff of the 435th seat (actually only 385 are apportioned under the formula). Comparing the ranks in the December 2010 apportionment with the July 1, 2014 estimates: (Note that there are some difference in the notations here compared to previous summaries. The parenthetical net compares to positions in the ranks.)
    
    ABOVE the 2014 cutoff:
    1. Seat 431: CA at 53, at 434 in 2010 (+3), with a 427,000 person surplus.
    2. Seat 432: TX at 37, at 447 in 2010 (+15), with a 278,000 person surplus.
    3. Seat 433: NC at 14, at 436 in 2010 (+3), with a 82,000 person surplus.
    4. Seat 434: IL at 18, at 423 in 2010 (-11), with a 93,000 person surplus.
    5. Seat 435: MI at 14, at 424 in 2010 (-11), with a 48,000 person surplus.
       BELOW the 2014 cutoff:
    6. Seat 436: PA at 18, at 427 in 2010 (-9), with a 63,000 person deficit.
    7. Seat 437: MN at 8, at 435 in 2010 (-2), with a 40,000 person deficit.
    8. Seat 438: CA at 54, at 445 in 2010 (+7), with a 495,000 person deficit.
    9. Seat 439: OR at 6, at 442 in 2010 (+3), with a 53,000 person deficit.
    10. Seat 440: VA at 12, at 444 in 2010 (+4), with a 113,000 person deficit.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 23, 2014. A--STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2014.

• The Census Bureau estimates that the national resident population has increased 9.5 million persons (3.07%) since the July 1, 2010 estimates.
• (The comparable rate of growth for the 2000 to 2004 timeframe was 4.06%.)
• National totals for Total Resident Population (50 states+DC):
  • Jul 1, 2014 Estimates: 318,857,056
  • Jul 1, 2010 Estimates: 309,347,057
  • (Apr 1, 2010 Census: 308,745,538)
• States with the largest percentage gains:
  • ND +9.7%
  • DC +8.9%
  • TX +6.8%
  • CO +6.1%
  • UT +6.1%
• States with the smallest gains or losses:
  • WV -0.2%
  • VT +0.1%
  • RI +0.2%
  • ME +0.2%
  • IL +0.3%
• States closest to the national average rate:
  • OK +3.15%
  • US +3.07%
  • TN +3.03%
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 30, 2013. STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2014: PROJECTIONS TO 2020

• Based upon the new 2014 state-level estimates (see above), a quick review of projections out from July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2020 is the basis for a quick review of possible scenarios in the future.
• These projections are simple extrapolations based upon the most recent trends and do not account for any overseas personnel nor are they adjusted for the April 1, 2020 census date.
• There could be 6 states gaining and 7 or 8 states losing a seat or more based upon alternative scenarios. The scenarios simply modify the rate of growth from the most recent years.
• Of these 14 or 15 states only 1 would see a shift or more than 1 seat: TX could gain 2 or 3 seats depending upon the scenario.
• States that could gain:
  • CO, FL, MT, NC, TX, and VA
• States that could lose:
  • IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI, and WV
• The only difference in the states listed is that in one scenario MN would remain at 8 and TX gain only 2 but in the other scenarios MN would lose and TX would gain 3.
• The positions of states varies in the scenarios: AL and MT are seats 435 and NY and CA are seat 436. In several cases the number of persons in the surplus or deficit is under 25,000.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 30, 2013. STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2013.

• The Census Bureau estimates that the national resident population has increased 6.8 million persons (2.20%) since the July 1, 2010 estimates.
• (The comparable rate of growth for the 2000 to 2003 timeframe was 2.89%.)
• National totals for Total Resident Population (50 states+DC):
  • Jul 1, 2013 Estimates: 316,129,000
  • Jul 1, 2010 Estimates: 309,326,000
  • (Apr 1, 2010 Census: 308,745,538)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 30, 2013. CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ESTIMATES FOR 2013

• By using the recent state-level estimates for the post-2010 census estimates it is possible to get a general sense as to which states might gain or lose a seat or more in the apportionment of 2020.
• Of course, these are simply to provide a very general idea based upon the assumption that the apportionment would be made upon these numbers alone, without any projection out and without any additional persons for federal overseas personnel.
• Were these estimates used to apportion seats in the U.S. House, there would have been only one shift over the actual apportionment made in December of 2010.
  • MN would lose 1 seat, dropping from 8 to 7
  • NC would gain 1 seat, increasing from 13 to 14
• (Note, these are the same two states that would have experienced a shift had the apportionment been made upon last year's 2012 estimates.)
• In fact, following the actual apportionment in December 2010, these two states were flipped, with NC (-16,000) losing out to MN (+9,000) for the last seat.
• Based upon the 2013 estimates: NC is now ranked at 435, with an extra 72,000 persons. MN is now ranked at 437, falling short by 42,000 persons.
• Several other states were fairly close to the cutoff of the 435th seat (actually only 385 are apportioned under the formula). Comparing the ranks in the December 2010 apportionment with the July 1, 2013 estimates: (Note that there are some difference in the notations here compared to previous summaries.)
  
  ABOVE the 2013 cutoff:
  1. Seat 431: WA at 10, at 432 in 2010 (+1), with a 97,000 person surplus.
  2. Seat 432: MI at 14, at 424 in 2010 (-8), with a 119,000 person surplus.
  3. Seat 433: PA at 18, at 427 in 2010 (-6), with a 97,000 person surplus.
  4. Seat 434: CA at 53, at 434 in 2010 (nc), with a 289,000 person surplus.
  5. Seat 435: NC at 14, at 436 in 2010 (+1), with a 72,000 person surplus.
     BELOW the 2013 cutoff:
  6. Seat 436: TX at 37, at 447 in 2010 (+11), with a 194,000 person deficit.
  7. Seat 437: MN at 8, at 435 in 2010 (-2), with a 42,000 person deficit.
  8. Seat 438: VA at 12, at 444 in 2010 (+6), with a 127,000 person deficit.
  9. Seat 439: MT at 2, at 440 in 2010 (+1), with a 17,000 person deficit.
  10. Seat 440: OR at 6, at 442 in 2010 (+2), with a 68,000 person deficit.

Dec 30, 2013. STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2013: PROJECTIONS TO 2020

• Based upon the new 2013 state-level estimates (see above), a quick review of projections out from July 1, 2013 to July 1, 2020 is the basis for a quick review of possible scenarios in the future.
• These projections are simple extrapolations based upon the most recent trends and do not account for any overseas personnel nor are they adjusted for the April 1, 2020 census date.
• There could be 6 states gaining and 7 or 8 states losing a seat or more based upon alternative scenarios. The scenarios simply modify the rate of growth from the most recent years.
• Of these 14 or 15 states only 1 would see a shift or more than 1 seat: TX could gain 2 or 3 seats depending upon the scenario.
• States that could gain:
  • CO, FL, MT, NC, TX, and VA
• States that could lose:
  • IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI, and WV
• The only difference in the states listed is that in one scenario MN would remain at 8 and TX gain only 2 but in the other scenarios MN would lose and TX would gain 3.
• The positions of states varies in the scenarios: AL and MT are seats 435 and NY and CA are seat 436. In several cases the number of persons in the surplus or deficit is under 25,000.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Apr 4, 2013: Elections 2012: Presidential Results by Congressional District (PRCD12)

• The preliminary numbers are now available for the 2012 elections. An overview of the study can be found here.
• A summary of the project and some historical comparisons may be found at the PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS page.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Jan 10, 2013: Elections 2012: Official Numbers for the Electoral College

• The National Archives has a page that summarizes the votes by candidate by state. The information contained in the table is compiled by the Archives from information provided by the states in their Certificates of Ascertainment. The main purpose here is to transmit the names of, and votes for, the electors and to set the stage for the Electoral College.
• A review of this information as of today indicates a few inconsistencies of which users should be aware.
  1. The table includes a column for four parties (Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, and Green) and a catch-all denominated "Others (all other listed parties and candidates)". There is also a "Total Votes" column. (Note also that there may be a few small inconsistencies with respect to the calculations of the totals column and totals line in the table.)
  2. Thus, write-in votes are generally not included in the table as it will depend upon how each state defines their status. The Polidata review of the state web sites indicates that several hundred thousand votes were counted for candidates other then those offered by the four parties in the table, some of whom were on the ballots in some states. These may be categorized as 121,000 for Virgil Goode; 249,000 for all others for whom individual totals were provided; and an additional 110,000 for scattering names that may have been separately counted or not.
  3. Therefore, the "Total Votes" column is simply a sum of the five columns included in the table: it excludes write-in votes that were not "listed" and it excludes voters who showed up at the polls but either didn't cast a ballot or cast one that was not counted.
  4. A comparison of the NARA table with the Polidata review indicates only a handful of differences in the votes for the four parties included. As of this date, CO and WV show information on their web sites that does not agree with that in the NARA table, though the differences are minor in the hundreds of votes. Also, WI has recently provided a correction on their state web site.
  5. The largest difference between the NARA table and the Polidata review is for NY, which appears to have submitted a certificate based upon their provisional votes and not their final totals that were certified Dec. 31, 2012. This makes sense given the timing of the Electoral College. However, there is another inconsistency in the NY information as the NARA summarized votes by party and not by nominee/candidate. Thus, the votes for both Obama and Romney are understated by hundreds of thousands of votes for these two reasons.
  6. For a summary of the votes by candidate for the nation, see the following note (Jan 09, 2013) which is based on the Polidata review of the SEA web sites.
  7. A note on turnout: the definition of how to determine voter turnout, as opposed to votes cast (e.g., for President), may vary by state. In several states there is not a separate tabulation of turnout and therefore the high vote is used; in most cases this simply means using the vote for President as a proxy. The Polidata review indicates that the hybrid status of turnout (either from estimates or the high office) indicates that at least an additional 800,000 voters showed up at the polls in the states that calculated turnout numbers.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Jan 09, 2013: Elections 2012: Vote-based Turnout Estimates: Update 6

• This is an update to the note from Dec. 13, 2012; this update is based upon a review of the web sites of state election authorities (SEAs) as of Jan. 09, 2013. Results are OFFICIAL in all states as of this date though some revisions still occur.
• Based upon CVA (estimated Citizens of Voting Age), and all votes cast and counted, the turnout rates for 2012 and 2008 follow:
  1. 2012: 129,100,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 58.7%** turnout (**as of Jan. 09, 2013).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• Vote by candidate:
  1. Obama: 65,900,000 (51.1%)
  2. Romney: 60,929,000 (47.2%)
  3. Others: 2,223,000 (1.7%)
  4. Total: 129,100,000
• For 2012, the percentage break for the major party vote is Obama: 52.0%; Romney: 48.0% (**as of Jan. 09, 2013).
• For 2008, the percentage break for the major party vote was Obama: 53.7%; McCain: 46.3%.
• To increase the comparability of this estimated rate of turnout, these numbers are based upon a comparison of votes counted for President and not voters who cast a ballot. There is more inconsistency amongst states for the latter than than the former.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 20, 2012. STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2012.

• The Census Bureau estimates that the national resident population has increased 4.6 million persons (1.48%) since the July 1, 2010 estimates. (The comparable rate of growth for the 2000 to 2002 timeframe was 2.17%.)
• National totals for Total Resident Population (50 states+DC):
  • Jul 1, 2012 Estimates: 313,914,000
  • Jul 1, 2010 Estimates: 309,326,000
  • (Apr 1, 2010 Census: 308,745,538)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 20, 2012. CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ESTIMATES FOR 2012

• By using the recent state-level estimates for the post-2010 census estimates it is possible to get a general sense as to which states might be gain or lose a seat or more in the apportionment of 2020.
• Of course, these are simply to provide a very general idea based upon the assumption that the apportionment would be made upon these numbers alone, without any projection out and without any additional persons for federal overseas personnel.
• Were these estimates used to apportion seats in the U.S. House, there would have been only one shift over the actual apportionment made in December of 2010.
  • MN would lose 1 seat, dropping from 8 to 7
  • NC would gain 1 seat, increasing from 13 to 14
• (Note, these are the same two states that would have experienced a shift had the apportionment been made upon last year's 2011 estimates.)
• In fact, following the actual apportionment in December 2010, these two states were flipped, with NC losing out to MN for the last seat.
• Based upon the 2012 estimates: NC is now ranked at 435, with an extra 55,000 persons. MN is now ranked at 436, falling short by 30,000 persons.
• Several other states were fairly close to the cutoff of the 435th seat (actually only 385 are apportioned under the formula). Comparing the ranks in the December 2010 apportionment with the July 1, 2012 estimates:
  
  ABOVE the 2010 cutoff:
  1. Seat 431: was FL at 27, now at 431 (nc) with 275,000 persons extra.
  2. Seat 432: was WA at 10, now at 433 (-1) with 80,000 persons extra.
  3. Seat 433: was TX at 36, now at 428 (+5) with 545,000 persons extra.
  4. Seat 434: was CA at 53, now at 434 (nc) with 305,000 persons extra.
  5. Seat 435: was MN at 8, now at 436 (-1) with a 30,000 person deficit.
     BELOW the 2010 cutoff:
  6. Seat 436: was NC at 14, now at 435 (+1) with 55,000 persons extra.
  7. Seat 437: was MO at 9, now at 445 (-8) with a 110,000 person deficit.
  8. Seat 438: was NY at 28, now at 440 (-2) with a 305,000 person deficit.
  9. Seat 439: was NJ at 13, now at 444 (-5) with a 165,000 person deficit.
  10. Seat 440: was MT at 2: now at 442 (-2) with a 17,000 person deficit.

Dec 13, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Update 5

• This is an update to the note from Nov. 29, 2012; this update is based upon media sources as of Dec. 12, 2012 and a review of the web sites of state election authorities (SEAs) when results are available. Results are OFFICIAL in all but a handful states to date.
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for other timeframes follow:
  1. 2012: 128,400,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 58.4%** turnout (**as of Dec. 12, 2012).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• To increase the comparability of this estimated rate of turnout, these are based upon a comparison of votes counted for President and not voters who cast a ballot. There is more inconsistency amongst states for the latter than than the former.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 29, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Update 4

• This is an update to the note from Nov. 15, 2012; this update is based upon media sources as of Nov. 15, 2012 and a review of the web sites of state election authorities (SEAs) when results are available. Results are OFFICIAL in about 20 states to date.
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for other timeframes follow:
  1. 2012: 126,600,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 57.6%** turnout (**as of Nov. 28, 2012).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 17, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Review of Close States

• This is based upon media sources as of Nov. 15, 2012.
• There are 5 states in which the margin of victory was less than 5 percentage points.
  1. Florida: Obama by 0.8% (73,000);
  2. Ohio: Obama by 2.0% (103,000);
  3. North Carolina: Romney by 2.2% (97,000);
  4. Virginia: Obama by 3.2% (116,000);
  5. Colorado: Obama by 4.8% (113,000).
• Based upon these states with the smallest percentage margin, the hypothetical minimum additional vote for Romney to have won would be 405,000 votes (0.3%) in 4 of these 5.
• Alternatively, other scenarios exist, e.g., by substituting NH for CO, he would have needed an additional 333,000 votes.
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 16, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Review of 'Other' candidates

• This is based upon media sources as of Nov. 15, 2012.
• The ballot in many states included the names of candidates other than the nominees of the two major parties though there was variation amongst the states.
• The combined vote for these is 1,962,000 or 1.6% of the total votes counted to date. Three candidates account for 90% of these votes:
  1. Gary Johnson (Libertarian and other labels): 1,205,000 (0.9%);
  2. Jill Stein (Green and other labels): 432,000 (0.3%);
  3. Virgil Goode (Constitution and other labels): 118,000 (0.0%).
• Had these candidates not been on the ballot it is likely that some margins for the major party candidates would have been even closer as there were several states in which the combined total of 'Other' votes was equal to a substantial portion of the margin of victory:
  1. Florida: 99% of the 73,000 vote margin;
  2. Ohio: 85% of the 103,000 vote margin;
  3. Colorado: 49% of the 113,000 vote margin;
  4. Virginia*: 45% of the 116,000 vote margin;
  5. New Mexico*: 42% of the 76,000 vote margin.
  6. (*Johnson is a former governor of New Mexico; *Goode is a former member of congress from Virginia; Stein resides in Massachusetts.)
• Excluding these votes, the percentage break for the major party vote is Obama: 51.4%; Romney: 48.6% (**as of Nov. 15, 2012).
• For 2008, the percentage break for the major party vote was Obama: 53.7%; McCain: 46.3%.
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 15, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Update 3

• This is an update to the note from Nov. 12, 2012; this update is based upon media sources as of Nov. 15, 2012.
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for other timeframes follow:
  1. 2012: 123,700,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 56.3%** turnout (**as of Nov. 15, 2012).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 12, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Update 2

• This is an update to the note from Nov. 10, 2012; this update is based upon media sources as of Nov. 12, 2012.
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for other timeframes follow:
  1. 2012: 122,484,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 55.7%** turnout (**as of Nov. 12, 2012).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 10, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Update 1

• This is an update to the note from Nov. 09, 2012; this update is based upon media sources as of Nov. 10, 2012.
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for other timeframes follow:
  1. 2012: 121,238,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 55.1%** turnout (**as of Nov. 10, 2012).
  2. 2008: 131,300,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 62.4%* turnout (*certified total votes for President from 2008).
• (These are provided as a rough basis for comparison until final numbers are available.)
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 09, 2012: Elections 2012: Preliminary Turnout Estimates: Election Night Comparison, 2012 to 2008

• Inasmuch as the final numbers for the election will not be provided by all states for some weeks, the following discussion reviews the election night statistics.
• It is usual for significant differences between votes reported as of Election Night and the final certified reports. These differences may be for several reasons, some of which are administrative and some of which are legal.
• For the 2008 presidential election, the overall final vote tally was about 7% higher than that reported following the election.
• There are several measures by which the rate of voter turnout can be guaged and several factors that can be used for such an analysis.
  • WHAT TO COUNT
    
    1. Voters who cast a ballot.
    2. Votes counted on those ballots.
    3. (The choice is usually made by the state and may vary by local jurisdiction and over time.)
  • WHEN TO COUNT/WHAT TO COMPARE
    
    1. Preliminary 'Election Night' reports from the media.
    2. Final vote tallies from certifed returns.
    3. (For a while after the election there is only one option but at some point the media stop updating the numbers.)
  • WHAT UNIVERSE TO USE TO CALCULATE RATE OF TURNOUT
    
    1. Registered Voters (REG)
    2. Voting Age Persons (VAP)
    3. Citizens of Voting Age (CVA)
    4. Eligible Persons (VEP)
    5. (REG is easy to locate and is useful for intrastate analysis; VAP requires estimation but is comparable across states; CVA is somewhat more difficult to estimate but is also comparable across states; VEP can be a useful refinement but is also difficult to estimate.)
• The following compares the Election Night numbers for the two previous presidential elections:
  • 2012, Thursday Nov 8:
    1. Obama: 60,322,000 (50.4%)
    2. Romney: 57,538,000 (48.1%)
    3. Others: 1,860,000 (1.5%)
    4. Total: 119,720,000
  • 2008, Thursday Nov 6:
    1. Obama: 64,487,000 (52.5%)
    2. McCain: 56,745,000 (46.2%)
    3. Others: 1,575,000 (1.3%)
    4. Total: 122,807,000
  • Net 2012 over 2008:
    1. Obama: -4,165,000 (-2.1%)
    2. Romney: +793,000 (+1.9%)
    3. Others: +285,000 (+0.2%)
    4. Total: -3,087,000
• Based upon CVA, the turnout rates for the Election Night numbers follow:
  1. 2012: 119,720,000 of 219,900,000 CVA equals 54.4% turnout.
  2. 2008: 122,807,000 of 210,400,000 CVA equals 58.4% turnout.
• Thus, based upon preliminary Election Night numbers, the rate of voter turnout was lower in 2012 than in 2008, by about 4 percentage points. Note, that these two rates are not strictly comparable because changes in administrative or legal circumstances may have changed.
• If the patterns from 2008 were continued through for the 2012 election, turnout would be expected to be about 138,000,000, or about 6,000,000 more voters.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Feb 02, 2011: Census 2010 Legislative Redistricting Data: Release of the PL94-171 Datasets Begins

• Today the Director of the Bureau of the Census, Dr. Robert M. Groves, announced the beginning of the release of the information to be used by the states for the districting phase of the apportionment process. The so-called PL94-171 data include block-level detail of the population and voting age population with breaks for race and Spanish Origin population subgroups. This is the first release of the results of the 2010 Census below the national and state numbers released Dec. 21, 2010 (see below).
• Polidata drafted some comments on the preliminary format of these data as a result of the Dress Rehearsal datasets. This paper was submitted at the NCSL's first redistricting seminar in 2009. Some updated comments follow:
  • The entire record for each level of geography will continue to be provided in three files: a geographic header record and two record segments.
  • A few changes have been made to the geographic file: a few fields have changed from the DR prototype.
  • No changes have been made to the record segment files. The first segment file contains the tables P1 and P2: breaks for the total population; the second segment file contains the tables P3 and P4: breaks for the voting age population AND table H1--Occupancy Status for Housing units.
  • Changes to the fields in the geographic header record include:
    1. The first RESERVED field of C-7 (following AITSCC) has been changed to TTRACT C-6 and TBLKGRP C-1.
    2. The field originally designated as ZCTA3 (C-3) has been changed to RESERVE2.
    3. The field originally designated as TAZ (C-6) has been changed to RESERVE3.
    4. The field originally designated as RESERVED (C-55) has been changed to include the following fields:
       • CD113, CD114, CD115 (all C-2)
       • SLDU2, SLDU3, SLDU4 (all C-3)
       • SLDL2, SLDL3, SLDL4 (all C-3)
       • AIANHHSC (C-2)
       • CSASC (C-2)
       • CNECTASC (C-2)
       • MEMI (C-1)
       • NMEMI (C-1)
       • PUMA (C-5)
       • RESERVED (C-18)
    5. Note also that there are a few inconsistencies between fields in the PL data files compared to other Census 2010 files: a) SUMLEV (C-3) in the PL files is referred to as SUMLEVEL (C-3) in the ACS files. b) LOGRECNO is a numeric field though it could be treated as either a numeric (N-7) or alphanumeric (C-7) field; in fact, it contains leading zeroes in the download version. c) the version of the text data files available for download as the *.pl files are actually comma-separated values (.csv); though there is a set of flat ASCII column-oriented (.sdf or .txt) files on the discs.
  • Find the dress rehearsal paper via the NCSL Redistricting portal.
  • Find a related ACS paper at the NCSL portal also.
  • Find the Bureau information at the Redistricting Office page.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 21, 2010: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: 2010 STATE-LEVEL NUMBERS RELEASED FROM 2010 CENSUS

• The Bureau of the Census has released the first numbers from the April 1, 2010 Census. Today's release contains only the state-level numbers used to determine the number of seats apportioned to each state in the U.S. House. The numbers include a) the resident population; b) the overseas population (military and federal personnel and their dependents); and c) the combined total, known as the apportionment population.
• This first release of census data reminds us all that it is the apportionment of seats amongst the states that provides the constitutional raison d'etre for the census. These apportionment numbers will be first used in the 2012 elections for the 113th Congress. They will also affect the Electoral College for the 2012 Presidential Election.
• Because these are the official numbers, there is no reason to use the projections, based upon the annual estimates, as in mid-decade years.
• However, a few different scenarios with respect to alternative bases of population are discussed below.
  • In summary, based upon the 2010 Apportionment Population:
    • States gaining over the 2000 Apportionment (8): AZ +1; FL +2; GA +1; NV +1; SC +1; TX +4; UT +1; WA +1.
    • States gaining over the 2000 Apportionment (10): IL -1; IA -1; LA -1; MA -1; MI -1; MO -1; NJ -1; NY -2; OH -2; PA -1.
    • The previous projections were based upon the annual estimates projected out to the census April 1 date. As with the 2000 process, a few changes were evident from the counts versus the previous projections based upon 2009 estimates (see below for Dec. 23, 2009 projections): [Those changes over the 2009 projections include: MO loses 1 seat to 8 seats while MN stays at 8; NY loses 2 to 27 seats while FL gains 2 to 27 seats. MO came in at seat 437 and MN at seat 435 while NY was seat 438 and FL was seat 431. FL moved from seat 439 to 431 due to the census count; for the 2000 apportionment, it moved from 440 on the estimates to 432 in the count.]
  • States which did receive the last 5 seats under these numbers (435 to 431):
    • 435: MN with about 9,000 to spare
    • 434: CA with about 118,000 to spare
    • 433: TX with about 99,000 to spare
    • 432: FL with about 113,000 to spare
    • 431: SC with about 50,000 to spare
  • States which did not receive seats but are close to the cutoff (436 to 445):
    • 436: NC would be about 16,000 short
    • 437: MO would be about 15,000 short
    • 438: NY would be about 107,000 short
    • 439: NJ would be about 63,000 short
    • 440: MT would be about 10,000 short
    • 441: LA would be about 49,000 short
    • 442: OR would be about 41,000 short
    • 443: OH would be about 144,000 short
    • 444: VA would be about 122,000 short
    • 445: CA would be about 654,000 short
• Additional notes:
  • OVERSEAS VS. RESIDENT POPULATION: The addition of the 1.042 million overseas population was about twice the number from the 2000 Census. There would have been no net difference in the actual seats apportioned if the overseas population had been excluded, although the rank of the seats near the 435 seat cutoff would have varied slightly.
  • CITIZEN POPULATION: Had the apportionment been done on the basis of citizen population, there would have been many differences. Of course, the important caveat here is that this is merely an illustrative exercise because of both legal and technical considerations. To assess the rate of citizenship the source is the 2009 1-year release of the American Community Survey (ACS). Changes over the 2000 actual apportionment would have been significant had this rule been applied.
    For example, using this estimate of the citizen population as the apportionment base: a) CA would have not remained the same but lost 5 seats. b) NY would have not lost 2 seats but lost 3 seats, c) TX would have not gained 4 seats but gained only 2 seats. d) OH would have not lost 2 seats but lost only 1 seat. e) FL would have gained not 2 seats but gained only 1 seat. f) other states that would have gained a seat or not lost a seat include: MT, OK, MO (not lost), IN, PA (not lost), and NC.
  • ELECTORAL COLLEGE: Compared to the Electoral College based upon the 2000 Census, used for both the 2004 and 2008 elections, there would be a generic shift of 6 seats from states won by President Obama in the 2008 elections to states won by Republican nominee John McCain. (N.B., that the Nebraska vote was determined by the vote in congressional districts and thus the delegation vote was split. A net shift of 6 is based upon a non-split vote.)
  • ANNUAL ESTIMATES: The Bureau modified the methodology for the Estimates Program, from which we get estimates for states, counties, and county subdivisions, in the middle of the decade. While this seems to have reduced the differential between the estimates and the count of the resident population, a few states still exhibited large differences.
    • States with the largest absolute differences: Estimate/Projection was higher than the Census Count: AZ (-275,000), GA (-240,000), and NY (-220,000); Estimate/Projection was lower than the Census Count: FL (+170,000), PA (+70,000), and HI (+60,000).
    • States with the largest relative differences: Estimate/Projection was higher than the Census Count: AZ (-4.0%), GA (-2.0%), and UT (-2.0%); Estimate/Projection was lower than the Census Count: HI (+4.5%), ND (+3.5%), and WY (+2.0%).
    • On the flip side, the number of states in which the relative difference between the estimates/projections and the apportionment population was less than or equal to 1.0% was 38.
    • (Note: while the estimates were from the Bureau, the projections from the July 1, 2009 estimate date forward 9 months to the April 1, 2010 census date were made by Polidata. Thus, not all differences are attributable to the estimates alone. In addition, this period was in the middle of the recession and the economic downturn.)
    • Overall, the Polidata projection for the resident population (50 states plus DC) was 309,001,000 based upon the 2009 estimates. The corresponding number from the census count is 308,745,000, an exceedingly small difference of about 250,000 persons, thus bolstering the overall positive results from the Bureau's Estimates Program.
• Find the maps via the Polidata census portal; click here for document link page.
• Find the Bureau information at this (temporary) link.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 23, 2009: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: 2010 PROJECTIONS BASED UPON STATE ESTIMATES AS OF JULY 1, 2009

• The Bureau of the Census has released its annual state-level estimates of the resident population.
• As the Bureau does not undertake the process of projecting these data forward to Census date of April 1, 2010, the researcher is left to their own to run the numbers for a projection of possible impact on the apportionment of seats in the U.S. House.
• Projections for April 1, 2010 based upon the 2009 Estimates:
  • For the projections to April 1, 2010 using these 2009 estimates, a few models were reviewed for possible scenarios.
    • States gaining based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: AZ +1; FL +1; GA +1; NV +1; SC +1; TX +4; UT +1; WA +1.
    • States losing based upon July 1, 2009 estimates projected to April 1, 2010: IL -1; IA -1; LA -1; MA -1; MI -1; MN -1; NJ -1; NY -1; OH -2; PA -1.
    • Thus, changes in seats compared to the previous projections based upon 2008 estimates would be: AZ gains only 1 seat while MO stays even and OR stays even while WA gains 1 seat.
  • So, the states with good news here include clearly WA and MO. There is some good news for CA which had been close to losing a seat. The news for TX was mixed: it had been close to gaining only 3 seats but these projections keep it at a gain of 4 although the strength has decreased. There is also no good news for NC which fell several positions for a 14th seat. However, there is good news for SC as it gained position in the rankings to gain a 7th seat. The states with the smallest margins of persons include MO and MN, see detail below.
  • States which would receive the last 5 seats under these projections:
    • 435: MO with about 10,000 to spare
    • 434: TX with about 40,000 to spare
    • 433: CA with about 120,000 to spare
    • 432: WA with about 30,000 to spare
    • 431: SC with about 20,000 to spare
  • States which would not receive seats but are close to the cutoff:
    • 436: MN would be about 10,000 short
    • 437: OR would be about 20,000 short
    • 438: AZ would be about 50,000 short
    • 439: FL would be about 150,000 short
    • 440: NC would be about 75,000 short
    • 441: IL would be about 140,000 short
    • 442: OH would be about 130,000 short
    • 443: NJ would be about 110,000 short
    • 444: MA would be about 90,000 short
    • 445: LA would be about 70,000 short
  • However, there are still several caveats to remember here:
    • These are projections based upon annual estimates, not any count of persons.
    • Population shifts may still occur between the July 1, 2010 and the April 1, 2010 Census date due to a) normal population shifts; b) recovery from Katrina dislocation; and c) economic recovery.
    • These projections do not include any overseas population. However, one model did use an estimate from the 2000 overseas population factored out to 2010. Even this model did not shift any seats, and it did not even alter positions in the priority listing much.
  • Note: the projections from the last decade were close but when the final counts were released a few states were different than projections. The surprise in that case was not so much as the states that lost a seat in the actual apportionment compared to the projections so much as the states that gained. The states that lost were very close to the cutoff while the states that gained were farther away from the cutoff. Therefore, it is likely that any differences between the projections released today compared to the actual apportionment released in December 2010 will be from the 15 states listed above.
• Find the complete press release and maps via the Polidata census portal; click here for document link page.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Mar 3, 2009: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: 437 SEATS, OR SHOULD IT BE 436?

• Back when folks were upset that Utah missed a 4th congressional seat due to its overseas population, the concept was floated to add two seats to the U.S. House to make it 437 members voting on the floor for normal business (not Committee of the Whole). Notwithstanding the legal arguments as to whether it is even possible to give a non-State a voting member, I offer the following thoughts on the political perspective vis-a-vis the seats at issue.
• The theory, at the time, was that two seats would be a fair deal because the overwhelming favorability for Democrats in the District would be offset by the Utah seat, which would most likely favor Republicans. Following the 2010 census Utah will get its fourth seat regardless so adding two new seats now does not have the same dynamics as several years back unless the seats are specifically designated as being for Utah and the District. Then again, even though this appears to be the case as the bill currently exists (HR157), it wouldn’t be the same following the 2010 apportionment when the numbers are released in December of 2010, which apportionment would be in effect for the 2012 elections. The apportionment will be run on the new set of population totals from the April 1, 2010 census. Thus, whatever gain would go to UT would be early, but the gain to DC would be permanent. The real beneficiary of the 437th seat is unknown.
• While we can, at this point in time, project out from recent growth to what we think might happen in 2010, the latest projections, based upon the 2008 estimates projected out to 2010, would more likely result in a scenario different than that originally postulated. The District would clearly get a seat by being treated as a State and the hold harmless provision would give it a seat regardless of its population. It is the 437th seat that would be at issue. Based upon the latest projections, the states on the bubble would be Oregon at seat 436 with about 7,000 persons to spare, North Carolina at seat 437 with about 1,000 persons to spare. The two states below the cutoff would be Washington at seat 438 with about 1,000 persons too few. Next in line would be Minnesota at seat 438 with about 14,000 persons too few.
• These are just projections and the numbers are too close to nail down aside from possible scenarios. Then again, we also can’t tell what dislocation will result from the recession, how many persons will move back into Louisiana by next April (and from whence they came). Nor do we know many overseas military will be added to the apportionment state totals.
• Regardless, the concept that the two seats would be evenly distributed between parties in a House with 437 members after the 2010 census is not a very likely one given the current population trends. Republicans don't control much in the states most likely to be the recipients aside from Pawlenty being Governor in Minnesota. Washington is a commission state for Congress and the North Carolina Governor has no veto. Moreover, in none of these four states do Republicans control even one chamber of the legislature.
• As an alternative, if there was a retrocession of the District to Maryland, as was done with Alexandria to Virginia in the 1830s, based upon 436 members, MD would get an additional seat to go to 9. This would not affect any of the seats near the cutoff of 436 based upon the projections to date. The DC seat would have to take in some surrounding population to be a legitimate congressional district but that would be an internal problem for Annapolis.
• Polidata census portal; click here for document link page to the apportionment projections.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 22, 2008: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: 2010 PROJECTIONS BASED UPON STATE ESTIMATES AS OF JULY 1, 2008

• The Bureau of the Census has released its annual state-level estimates of the resident population.
• These latest numbers still raise uncertainty about several elements of the apportionment process: 1) the likelihood that areas affected by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita in 2005 will change by April 2010 (LA, MS and TX); 2) the degree to which the economic slowdown will affect areas all around the country; 3) the degree to which the economic slowdown will affect immigration.
• The Bureau does not undertake the relevant projections out to 2010 so the analyst is on their own. The Polidata projections try to account some of these factors to a degree. Normally a multi-year average is used for the projection factor, but for these three states, only the most recent 2007-2008 rate is used for projection. Nevertheless, these numbers probably still overestimate the population of Texas somewhat.
• This year's projections average the growth rate for the previous two years by give added weight to the most recent rate.
• In addition, this year's projection extend the population out only to the April 1, 2010 census date.
• Nevertheless, these projections do not account for any overseas population, who have been added to the apportionment counts for the past few decades.
• Summary:
  • Overall, 12 seats would shift in 19 states: from 11 states to 8 states based upon the most recent growth rates.
  • States losing more than 1 seat would be: Ohio, down 2 to 16.
  • State losing seats would be: Illinois, down 1 to 18; Iowa, down 1 to 4; Louisiana, down 1 to 6; Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; Michigan, down 1 to 14; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Missouri, down 1 to 8; New Jersey, down 1 to 12; New York, down 1 to 28; Ohio, down 2 to 16; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18;
  • States with gains of more than 1 seat would: Texas, up 4 to 36 seats*; and Arizona, up 2 to 10.
  • States gaining seats would be: Arizona, up to 10; Florida, up 1 to 26; Georgia, up 1 to 14; Nevada, up 1 to 4; Oregon, up 1 to 6; South Carolina, up 1 to 7; Texas, up 4 to 36; Utah, up 1 to 4.
• States closest to the 435 seat cutoff include several of these gainers and losers:
  • Last seats apportioned: (431:435) Texas, New York, South Carolina, California and Oregon.
  • Seats not apportioned: (436:440) North Carolina, Washington, Minnesota, Illinois and Missouri.
  • California is projected to stay at 53 seats, with 150,000 persons 'extra'. The importance of California is that this may be the first apportionment in which it does not gain ANY seats.
  • Several states have projected populations that could easily change enough to alter the results of the apportionment formula. States with an overage or underage of population about 25,000 persons include Oregon and South Carolina (over) and North Carolina, Washington, Minnesota and Montana (under).
• Find the complete press release and maps via the Polidata census portal; click here for document link page.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 18, 2008: 2008 ELECTION RECAP: SEVERAL RACES UNDECIDED 2 WEEKS PAST ELECTION DAY

• We know one thing, Barack Obama won the presidential election, yet we still do not know by how many electoral votes. We also know the Democrats picked up several seats (+6 to date) in the U.S. Senate and the U.S. House (+20 to date) but several races are still undecided.
• As of today, two weeks past election day, the following races are still undecided:
  • President: Missouri. McCain is ahead by 5,000 votes out of 2.9 million cast. The current electoral count is 365-162 with 11 out.
  • U.S. Senate: Georgia. Incumbent Saxby Chambliss (R) will be in a runoff in December.
  • U.S. Senate: Minnesota. Incumbent Norm Coleman (R) is ahead by 215 votes as the statewide recount begins Wednesday the 19th.
  • U.S. Senate: Alaska. Incumbent Ted Stevens (R), recently convicted on felony charges, sees his slim lead evaporate as ballots are counted.
  • U.S. House: several seats remain undecided as absentee ballots continue to be counted.
• Production of maps and analytics will await the final results but be ready in time for year's end, hopefully.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Apr 28, 2008: INDIANA VOTER ID CASE: SUPREME COURT MENTIONS POLIDATA STUDY

• A report prepared by Polidata principal consultant, Clark Bensen, was cited in today's opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the voter identification law adopted by the Indiana Legislature in 2003. Bensen prepared an expert report in the case in 2005.
• The Polidata report, which summarized the disparity between the self-reported registration and official counts in every state, focused on the list inflation resulting from failure to purge the rolls, largely in response to the effects of the NVRA (National Voter Registration Act of 1993) and the difficulty in purging of HAVA (Help America Vote Act of 2002).
• The study found that the inflation rate in Indiana's voter registration list was 41%, the largest rate in the nation. This indicated that, as of the 2004 elections, the registration list included names for 41% more than the number of self-reported registrants based upon census survey information. Put another way, 30% of the Indiana voter list was 'fluff', i.e., names of persons no longer eligible to vote at the address listed or duplicate voters.
• As usual, there were opposing experts in this case. The Polidata study was referred to by the Court as "evidence credited by Judge Barker" [the District Court judge]. (See page 8 of the slip opinion.) This contrasts sharply with Judge Barker's characterization of the report of the expert for the other side. (See page 17 of the slip opinion.)
• The case was up for oral argument on January 9, 2008 and it seemed likely from the oral arguments that the law would be sustained. In fact, it was, with a 6-3 vote to affirm the lower court opinion. (The District Court had been upheld on appeal to the Seventh Circuit. (See 472 F. 3d 949 (2006)).
• Justice Stevens' opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Kennedy. Justices Scalia, Thomas and Alito concurred in a separate opinion. Justice Souter filed a dissenting opinion in which Justice Ginsburg joined. Justice Breyer filed an additional dissenting opinion.
• The slip opinion for Crawford v. Marion County Election Board may be found on the Polidata site at this link.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 27, 2007: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: 2010 PROJECTIONS BASED UPON STATE ESTIMATES AS OF JULY 1, 2007

• The Bureau of the Census has released its annual state-level estimates of the resident population.
• This normally simple anaytical process still has an element of confusion related to the displacement of the victims from the 2005 disasters of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
• The Bureau does not undertake the relevant projections out to 2010 so the analyst is on their own. The Polidata projections try to account for this extraordinary situation by modifying the populations for both Louisiana and Mississippi as well as Texas. Normally a multi-year average is used for the projection factor, but for these three states, only the most recent 2006-2007 rate is used for projection. Nevertheless, these numbers probably still overestimate the population of Texas to some degree.
• Summary:
  • While Louisiana is rebounding to some degree, a few other states are still in play for shifts.
  • Overall, 14 seats would shift from 9 states to 12 states based upon the most recent growth rates.
  • The biggest gainers are: Texas, up 4 to 36 seats*; Florida, up 2 to 27; and Arizona, up 2 to 10.
  • Other gainers are: North Carolina, up 1 to 14 (new); South Carolina, up 1 to 7(new); Georgia, up 1 to 14; Utah, up 1 to 4; Nevada, up 1 to 4; Oregon, up 1 to 6.
  • The losing states losing the most would be New York, down 2 to 27 and Ohio, down 2 to 16.
  • Other losers are: Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; New Jersey, down 1 to 12; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18; Michigan, down 1 to 14; Illinois, down 1 to 18; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Iowa, down 1 to 4; Missouri, down 1 to 8; Louisiana, down 1 to 6; and California, down 1 to 52(new).
  • * see the note above about Texas.
• States closest to the 435 seat cutoff include several of these gainers and losers: 431:435 include Oregon, Texas, South Carolina, North Carolina and Pennsylvania; 436:440 include Washington, California, Minnesota, Missouri and Georgia.
• So, while it is news that California might actually lose a seat, it wouldn't be by much. The importance of California is that this may be the first apportionment in which it does not gain ANY seats.
• Find the complete press release and maps via the Polidata census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Mar 21, 2007: PRESIDENTIAL AND CONGRESSIONAL RESULTS FOR THE 2006 ELECTIONS

• The final congressional numbers are now available for the 2006 elections in the ERD-110 dataset. This dataset includes data compiled from state election authorities for each congressional district for the 2006 general elections.
• The dataset also includes the 2004 and 2000 Presidential Results by Congressional District for all districts. These data were recompiled, from several sources, for the states with new boundaries for the 2006 elections: GA (all districts) and TX (partial).
• The congressional numbers reflect numbers as reported by election authorities. In a handful of cases (notably in Louisiana and Texas), the results may represent an 'Open Primary' situation. The top vote getter for each party is designated as the party 'nominee'; all other party candidates are treated as 'Other' candidates. In two cases (LA-2 and TX-23), the dataset contains the results from the December runoffs. This will slightly affect any calculation of turnout.
• The presidential numbers, as always, reflect an estimate of the best-available contemporaneous data and may be the result of analytical judgment and allocation of some votes for the typical problems encountered in this type of project, notably split jurisdictions or electoral units and centrally reported early or absentee votes. Find more information on the development process at the development notes page: .
• The breakdown of the House based upon the Presidential Results is as follows: 194 Bush Republicans; 62 Bush Democrats; 8 Kerry Republicans; 171 Kerry Democrats.
• The dataset can be ordered at the dataset ordering page.

Dec 22, 2006: CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT: PROJECTIONS BASED UPON THE 2005 STATE ESTIMATES

• Just as everyone else is preparing to leave town for the holiday break, the Bureau of the Census has released its annual state-level estimates of the resident population.
• This normally simple anaytical process now has a new element infused into it: what to do with Louisiana and how to account for the huge out-migration of the victims of Hurricane Katrina to other states.
• The Bureau does not undertake the relevant projections out to 2010 so the analyst is on their own. The Polidata projections try to account for this extraordinary situation by modifying the populations for both Louisiana and neighboring Texas. Nevertheless, these numbers probably still overestimate the population of Texas to some degree. Until such time as more information is available at lower levels of geography, these projections will provide some more depth to the 2010 apportionment results.
• Summary:
  • The biggest gainers are: Texas, up 4 to 36 seats*; Florida, up 2 to 27; and Arizona, up 2 to 10.
  • Other gainers are: Georgia, up 1 to 14; Utah, up 1 to 4; Nevada, up 1 to 4; and new to the list: Oregon, up 1 to 6 and Washington, up 1 to 10.
  • The losing states losing the most would be New York, down 2 to 27 and Ohio, down 2 to 16.
  • Other losers are: Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18; Michigan, down 1 to 14; Illinois, down 1 to 18; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Iowa, down 1 to 4; Missouri, down 1 to 8. New to the list of losers would be New Jersey, down 1 to 12; and Louisiana, down 1 to 6.
  • * see the note above about Texas.
• Find the complete press release and maps via the Polidata census portal.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Nov 8, 2006: CONGRESSIONAL RESULTS: KERRY REPUBLICANS: AND THEN THERE WERE NONE

• An initial review of the preliminary results for the 2006 mid-term elections indicates a few interesting facts relating to the Presidential Results by Congressional Districts:
  • Overall, the number of seat changes in the U.S. House, based upon preliminary numbers, is at least -28 for the Republicans, with no incumbent Democrats losing, and 2 runoffs to follow in December in LA and TX.
  • The number of Kerry Republicans before the election was 18: based upon the election night numbers it is currently 8. (This assumes Simmons and Fitzpatrick stay behind, both currently designated as too close to call.)
  • Kerry Republicans losing include:
    1. CO-7 at 48.2% Bush; Beauprez Open won by Perlmutter;
    2. CT-2 at 44.2% Bush; Rob Simmons won by Courtney (TCTC);
    3. CT-5 at 49.0% Bush; Nancy Johnson won by Murphy;
    4. FL-22 at 47.5% Bush; Clay Shaw won by Klein;
    5. IA-1 at 46.4% Bush; Nussle Open won by Braley;
    6. IA-2 at 43.8% Bush; Jim Leach won by Loesback;
    7. KY-3 at 49.0% Bush; Anne Northrup won by Yarmuth;
    8. NH-2 at 47.0% Bush; Charlie Bass won by Hodes;
    9. PA-7 at 46.9% Bush; Curt Weldon won by Sestak;
    10. PA-8 at 48.0% Bush; Mike Fitzpatrick won by Murphy (TCTC);
  • Kerry Republicans winning reelection:
    1. CT-4 at 46.3% Bush; Christopher Shays;
    2. DE-A.L. at 45.8% Bush; Mike Castle;
    3. IL-10 at 47.2% Bush; Mark Kirk;
    4. NM-1 at 47.8% Bush; Heather Wilson (TCTC);
    5. NY-25 at 47.8% Bush; Jim Walsh;
    6. PA-6 at 48.2% Bush; Jim Gerlach (reported inconsistently);
    7. PA-15 at 49.6% Bush; Charlie Dent;
    8. WA-8 at 48.1% Bush; Dave Reichert (TCTC...only 31% in)
  • Early reports indicated that there were only two incumbent Democrats to lose reelection, both of whom were in Georgia, and both challenged by former members:
    1. GA-8 at 60.9% Bush (est.); Marhshall vs. Mac Collins
    2. GA-12 at 50.4% Bush (est.); Barrows vs. Max Burns
    3. Later numbers appear to have both Democrats retaining their seats (though GA-12 is TCTC, GA-8 is actually closer).
• Other Republican defeats: There were several other Republican seats that switched party by virtue of the election; these were basically of three types of seats: personal factors of scandal and/or celebrity; low generic Bush strength; and other factors:
  1. AZ-5 at 54.1% Bush; Hayworth won by Mitchell;
  2. AZ-8 at 52.9% Bush; Kolbe Open won by Giffords;
  3. CA-11 at 53.9% Bush; Pombo won by McNerney;
  4. FL-16 at 54.0% Bush; Foley Open won by Mahoney;
  5. IN-2 at 56.0% Bush; Chocola won by Donnelly;
  6. IN-8 at 61.5% Bush; Hostetler won by Ellsworth;
  7. IN-9 at 59.0% Bush; Sodrel won by Hill (reprise);
  8. KS-2 at 59% Bush; Ryun won by Boyda;
  9. MN-1 at 51.1% Bush; Gutknecht won by Walz;
  10. NH-1 at 50.8% Bush; Bradley won by Shea-Porter;
  11. NC-11 at 57.0% Bush; Taylor won by Shuler;
  12. NY-19 at 53.9% Bush; Kelly won by Hall;
  13. NY-20 at 53.5% Bush; Sweeney won by Gillibrand;
  14. NY-24 at 52.6% Bush; Boehlert Open won by Arcuri;
  15. OH-18 at 57% Bush; Ney Open won by Space;
  16. PA-4 at 54.5% Bush; Hart won by Altmire;
  17. PA-10 at 60.0% Bush; Sherwood won by Carney;
  18. TX-22 at 64.4% Bush; DeLay Open won by Lampson;
  19. WI-8 at 55.0% Bush; Green Open won by Kagen
• A few close races include:
  1. CT-2 Simmons (R incumbent) behind by 170 votes with 100% in;
  2. NC-8 Hayes (R incumbent) ahead by 460 votes with 100% in;
  3. WA-8 Reichert (R incumbent) ahead by 2,653 with only 31% in (severe weather Nov. 7);
  4. WY-A.L. Cubin (R incumbent) ahead by 970 votes with 100% in;
• To be determined in runoffs:
  1. LA-2 Jefferson (D incumbent) ahead in open primary with runoff to follow;
  2. TX-23 Bonilla (R incumbent) ahead with 48% of the vote in a special election with runoff to follow
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Sep 7, 2006: MAJORITY WATCH, Polling in 30 Close Congressional Races for the 2006 General Election

• Polidata has assisted Riehle-Tarrance Strategies in the data development for their ongoing polling in selected close congressional districts.
• Riehle-Tarrance Strategies is a bipartisan public affairs opinion research and polling organization.
• The first round of information is out and can be found at the Constituent Dynamics website.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Sep 6, 2006: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, Update for the 110th Congress

• Two states, Georgia and Texas, will conduct the 2006 congressional elections under new lines. In Georgia, all districts changed; in Texas, only 5 districts were changed.
• From the perspective of the Presidential Results, there were few large changes in either plan.
• You can find out more about the changes here: Notes on the Recalculation of Presidential Results by Congressional Districts (revised Sep. 19, 2006).
• Find the maps here for the recalculated 2004 Presidential Results by Congressional Districts of the 110th Congress
• For previous buyers of the full dataset, an update is available for GA and TX. Click here to email an inquiry for the updated file.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Jun 26, 2006: VERMONT CAMPAIGN FINANCE CASE: Supreme Court Opinion cites Polidata Study

• Polidata principal consultant, Clark Bensen, was cited in today's opinion of the U.S. Supreme Court relating to the campaign finance law adopted by the Vermont General Assembly in 1997. Bensen testified as an expert witness at the trial, held in Burlington during the spring of 2000.
• The Polidata report, which summarized the campaign finance reports for all legislative races in the state, focused on the degree to which funds raised by legislative candidates would have evaporated under the new campaign finance scheme. Bensen also testified that the appropriate analysis was to focus on the campaigns that really mattered, i.e., contested races, rather than merely calculating an average for all races. Both of these points were cited by the court in the court's opinion written by Justice Breyer as the primary factor for overturning the contribution limits of the campaign finance law.
• Bensen also testifed about how the campaign finance law would make the role of the political parties almost non-existent due to the limits in the law (characterized as "laughably low" in the dissenting opinion of Judge Winter in the court below). Justice Breyer's opinion treated this as the second factor for overturning the law's limits on contributions.
• This was one of the long-awaited opinions from the new Roberts Court. The case was up for oral argument on February 28, the day before that of the Texas redistricting case, March 1, 2006.
• Justice Breyer's opinion was joined by the Chief Justice and Justice Alito. Justice Kennedy concurred in a separate opinion. Justice Thomas was joined by Justice Scalia in a concurring opinion thus making it a 6-3 outcome to declare the major portions of the law unconstitutional under the First Amendment.
• The slip opinion for Randall v. Sorrell may be found on the Polidata site at this link.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

May 26, 2006: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, Final Review and Color Map Supplement

• At long last, the Final Review of the Presidential Results by Congressional Districts volume is now available. There are two printed volumes available: 1) the Final Review is a summary that includes thematic maps of districts for the nation and for each state; and 2) the Color Map Supplement which is just an extract of the maps in full color.
• The Final Review: this 580 page summary includes national maps and rankings on a variety of factors for both the Presidential and the Congressional elections as well as 50 State Mini-Reports with separate district-level maps for each election as well. For more information on the FINAL REVIEW, click here. This volume is bound in a permanent library binding, please allow 2-3 weeks for turnaround.
• The Color Map Supplement: this 200 page extract of all the national and state thematic maps is in full color. (All maps use the new Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat color scheme). This volume is bound in a comb/coil binding that allows for table-flat reference. For more information on the COLOR MAP SUPPLEMENT, click here. This volume is ordered directly from lulu.com.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

May 25, 2006: DEMOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES; Districts of the 108th Congress, 2000 Census Edition.

• At long last, the Demographic Guide to Congressional Districts volume is now available.
• The volume is a companion to both the DEMOGRAPHIC GUIDE TO THE UNITED STATES, States and Counties, as well as the DEMOGRAPHIC GUIDES for each state that summarize county subdivisions and places.
• The two main sections are 1) a national overview with rankings and a thematic map for many dozens of demographic variables; and 2) one-page Area Profiles for each of the 435 districts.
• Also included is an Appendix which contains full-page base maps and a county-to-district cross-reference.
• This volume summarizes the districts of the 108th Congress, for members elected in 2002. Some supplemental information is included for the states that changed for 2004 (ME, PA and TX) in the form of Area Profiles.
• For more information on this and other NATIONAL VOLUMES, click here. This volume is bound in a permanent library binding, please allow 2-3 weeks for turnaround.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

May 24, 2006: DEMOGRAPHIC DATASETS FOR CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, 2000 Census Edition.

• Datasets with selected demographic and political variables are now available.
• The datasets are available for the districts of both the 108th (2003-2004) and the 109th (2005-2006) Congresses. They are similar in format to those including the Presidential Results by Congressional Districts except they include only a summary of the presidential vote to accompany the selected demographic items.
• For more information on this and other DEMOGRAPHIC DATASET, click here.
• If you have any questions, please send an email to info@polidata.org for inquiries.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Mar 24, 2006: SERVER PROBLEMS

• Much of the Polidata content is available on the polidata.org server. Alas, this server was the victim of a successful intrusion. With security compromised, the entire server is being rebuilt to avoid any potential file corruption. Until such time it has been powered down and security issues are being addressed.
• Much of the free information is being moved to polidata.org but you will still find links, or references to polidata.org: this includes email accounts, which will be inoperable for now. If you find any problems please use the info@polidata.org account for inquiries.
• Our apologies for this inconvenience.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Mar 22, 2006: RED VS. BLUE

• Our apoplexy over the conversion of 40,000 pages of election information to the new Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat color scheme continues.
• Reports are being regenerated for the online free report information reflecting the new color scheme. You will notice a slight difference in the hues to help identify the reports which have been retrofitted.
• The new red is more of a DARK RED for Republican and the new blue is LIGHT BLUE for Democrat. You can view an example at the bottom of any state page: e.g., the Alabama Polidata page.
• The new color scheme is reflected in the reports for
  1. PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION RESULTS BY DISTRICT
  2. CONGRESSIONAL ELECTION RESULTS BY DISTRICT
  3. PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY COUNTY
  4. The state-level reports (STATEWIDE ELECTION HISTORY) will be ready in the next few months.
• POLIDATA Home Page.

Dec 22, 2005: APPORTIONMENT FOR 2010, BASED UPON 2005 ESTIMATES

• The Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2005. These have been projected by POLIDATA to 2010 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2010 census. These projections are based merely upon a simple 2-year average of the growth rate determined by the estimates from the Bureau. (Right now these numbers are based upon the revisions for 2004 and the estimates for 2005, revisions to the estimates for 2003 still need to be made.) Based upon these (pre-Katrina) projections:
  • the biggest GAINERS are: Florida, up 3 to 28; and Texas, up 3 to 35 seats.
    • based upon these numbers, a new big gainer would be Arizona, up 2 to 10 seats.
    • The other gainers are: Nevada, up 1 to 4; Utah, up 1 to 4; and Georgia, up 1 to 14.
  • the biggest LOSERS are: New York, down 2 to 27; and Ohio, down 2 to 16.
    • the other losers are: Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18; Michigan, down 1 to 14, ; Illinois, down 1 to 18; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Iowa, down 1 to 4; and Missouri, down 1 to 8.
  • A few notes:
    1. close calls: seat number 435 would go to Louisiana, about 2,500 folks to spare; seat 436 would be Minnesota, about 2,500 folks short.
    2. close calls: these numbers are pre-Katrina and even with the New Orleans reconstruction, Louisiana's best case scenario appears to be staying at 7 seats; it is more likely to drop 1 seat to 6. Katrina is likely not to have any effect on Alabama or Mississippi but it may bolster the Texas situation. By these July 1, 2005 estimates, TX is slightly behind in "gaining" its 2nd seat in 2005 by about 40,000 persons, losing to Arizona.
    3. close calls: this would be the first time California would not be gaining any seat in an apportionment since 1850!; even a one seat gain would be quite low for a California pickup. Aside from 2000, the last time the state only gained one seat was in 1910, when it went from 7 to 8 seats. Nevertheless, given the large California population, it is still too close to call.
  • A few caveats:
    • These numbers are based upon the July 1 annual estimates; any apportionment would be based upon the April 1 census date.
    • These numbers do not reflect any count of overseas personnel; overseas numbers were added to the apportionment counts in 1990 and 2000.
  • See the full press release and maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 6, 2005 IMPACT OF CITIZEN APPORTIONMENT

  • POLIDATA principal consultant, Clark Bensen, delivered comments before the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census on September 14 on Capitol Hill. The full committee Chair: Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA). The subcommittee Chair: Mike Turner (R-OH).
  • Committee website: House Government Reform Committee
  • Find the paper here: The Impact of Citizen Apportionment.
  • Related comments: See the 2010 Projections below.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Jul 27, 2005: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, FINAL DATASET NOW AVAILABLE

  • The district-level election dataset is now available.
  • See the PRCD Project page for options.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  May 01, 2005: APPORTIONMENT FOR 2030, BUREAU PROJECTIONS

  • The Bureau of the Census recently released state-level projections for the period of 2005 to 2030.
  • An update to the Jan 2005 calculation of the 2010 apportionment for the U.S. House has been made (see next news item.)
  • A few highlights for the 2030 projections:
    • Top five states: CA at 55; TX at 40; FL at 34; NY at 23; and IL at 16.
    • Number of states gaining over 2000: 11.
    • Number of states losing over 2000: 18
    • Number of states with no change over 2000: 21.
    • Number of states with fewer persons than in 2000: 2 (WV: 2 seats & ND: 1 A.L., plus DC).
    • Number of states with more than double the persons of 2000: 2 (AZ: 13 seats and NV: 5 seats).
    • Number of At-Large States: 8 (RI added).
    • Number of states with 5 or fewer members: 24.
    • Number of states with 10 or more members: 14.
    • Average members per state: 8.7.
  • Remember, these are just projections, decades out.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Apr 30, 2005: APPORTIONMENT FOR 2010, AN UPDATE FROM BUREAU PROJECTIONS

  • The Bureau of the Census recently released state-level projections for the period of 2005 to 2030.
  • An update to the Jan 2005 calculation of the 2010 apportionment for the U.S. House (click here for the earlier release) has been made.
  • Rerunning the apportionment for 2010 based upon these numbers produced only a few changes from our January report.
  • Four states were affected, all four of which were near the cutoff point of 435.
  • Changes between the Polidata projections and the Bureau projections are:
    • Alabama: Polidata: AL stays at 7; Bureau: AL loses 1 seats to 6. (Polidata: AL ranked at 433 for 7; Bureau: AL ranked at 436, just barely losing.)
    • Florida: Polidata: FL gains 3 to 28; Bureau: FL gains 2 to 27. (Polidata: FL ranked at 434 for 28; Bureau: FL ranked at 440 for 28.)
    • Michigan: Polidata: Michigan loses 1 to 14; Bureau: MI stays at 15. (Polidata: MI ranked at 438 for 15; Bureau: MI ranked at 430 for 15.)
    • Minnesota: Polidata: Minnesota loses 1 to 7; Bureau: MN stays at 8. (Polidata: MN ranked at 437 for 8; Bureau: MN ranked at 427 for 8.)
  • Remember, these are just projections, based upon a July date, and without regard to any overseas population.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Mar 30, 2005: OUR CONTENT WEBSERVER CRASHED OVERNIGHT, WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF RECONSTRUCTION
  LINKS TO POLIDATA.ORG WILL WORK BUT LINKS TO polidata.org MAY NOT
  UPDATE: 4 APR 2005: Most links should be back online for polidata.org but a few do remain broken/missing.

  ---

  Mar 26, 2005: 2004 ELECTORAL VOTE BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, Preliminary Summary

  • With the release yesterday of the preliminary count for the 2004 Presidential Results by Congressional District herewith is a brief update on the Electoral Vote by Congressional District.
  • Based upon the 2004 Electoral College vote, Bush received 286 votes. Under a uniform application of the proposed Electoral College by Congressional District method, the Bush/Cheny ticket would have received 317 votes (255 for each CD plus 2 for each of the 31 states.)
  • The numbers for Kerry/Edwards were 252 in December (ignoring the MN Edwards voter and adding 1 for DC) and 221 by this method.
  • Thus, under the electoral college vote, Bush received 53.2% of the vote. Under the proposed method he would have received 58.9% of the vote, a net difference of 5.7 points or an 11% gain.
  • Therefore, for the second time in a row, this method would not improve the differential between the popular vote and the electoral vote.
  • Related comments: Reform of the Electoral College, Electoral Vote by Congressional District.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Mar 25, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, Preliminary Summary

  • We have completed the first phase of the review of the results for the Presidential election for the districts of the 109th Congress.
  • A summary may be found at the PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS page.
  • These are preliminary numbers based upon a collection of information from state and local authorities.
  • Update (4/6/2005). The Press Release indicates the top five Kerry Republican districts. A slight modification in the votes has moved Kirk, at 53%, (IL-10) into the top five replacing Shaw, at 52%, (FL-22).
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Mar 10, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, ONLINE LOOKUP

  • There is now a new way to easily look up any state or county for the results of the 2004 Presidential Election.
  • One the home page, in the third column, find "online lookup for 2004".
  • In keeping with our attempt to provide information for both color schemes, there is a choice:
  • Red for Republican or Blue for Republican.
  • Information on the book can be located here:
  • PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004, STATES AND COUNTIES.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Feb 20, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, THE RED BOOK

  • We have managed to update our Polidata ® Election Reports with a new national volume.
  • PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004, STATES AND COUNTIES is now available.
  • This volume summarizes the official data for all states and all counties and provides a national overview and local detail.
  • Part 1 includes dozens of state-level thematic maps and rankings for multiple election factors.
  • Part 2 includes a group of county-level thematic maps and rankings for multiple election factors.
  • Part 3 includes a 4-page Mini-Report for each state providing an easy comparison with 2000.
  • Part 4 includes the county detail for all counties for both 2004 and 2000.
  • As with all Polidata ® Demographic and Political Guides, the book is available online in color.
  • A note on the color in this volume: We have reluctantly converted to the new standard of Red for Republican and Blue for Democrat.
  • The purchase price ($130.00) includes a free two-year subscription.
  • The volume may be purchased online via PayPal by using your account or a credit card. (S/H for PayPal orders is $8.)
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Feb 19, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, CHANGES OVER UNOFFICIAL DATA (IL REVISION)

  • Sometime between Jan. 1, 2005 and Feb. 19, 2005, ILLINOIS revised the official returns for President by County.
  • The change only affected three counties, though sizeable ones, (Kane, Kendall and Will) and only by a few hundred votes for each candidate.
  • The end result was a reduction for both Bush (-662) and Kerry (-439).
  • In addition, we have tried to reconcile all the state reports with our dataset numbers and the FEC vote report.
  • As below, our dataset includes the correction in MS (+12,321 votes for Bush) while the FEC report does not.
  • The FEC report includes several thousand write-in votes for Nader that we do not.
  • We exclude them either because they are not on the state's website or they are not available by county.
  • You may find a state-by-state listing of the final votes for the 2004 Presidential Election at the pages for our new Presidential volume (see above).
  • PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2004, STATES AND COUNTIES contains the state listing as a sample page.
  • A comparison of our overall national vote totals compared to the FEC report can be found here.
  • Note that our state and county datasets generally only reflect write-ins that are substantial and/or available at the county level.
  • See Feb 14, 2005 for online purchase.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Feb 15, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, CHANGES OVER UNOFFICIAL DATA (MS CORRECTION)

  • An error has been found in the official returns from the state of MISSISSIPPI. It affects the Bush numbers only.
  • Unofficial election-night returns indicated a Bush vote of 13,690. The official certified totals indicated only 1,369.
  • The totals of the precinct (beats) in Lowndes County indicate the election-night returns were correct.
  • This affects the Bush vote for MS and the Nation by adding 12,321 votes.
  • New totals are: MS: 684,991; US: 62,041,268
  • New breaks by county are:

    ---

  • Break in 2004:
    • Bush: 2,530 (81.2%)
    • Kerry: 583 (18.8%)
  • This correction, though unofficial, will be made in our county-level election datasets (see below).
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Feb 15, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, CHANGES OVER UNOFFICIAL DATA

  • Now that we have a county-level dataset based upon official returns from all state authorities some analysis can begin.
  • Remarkably, there were only 8 counties in which the winner identified on election night was not the winner when the official returns were in.
  • Of course, the numbers of votes, and the percentages by county, varied greatly, depending upon the state. For example, many election night vote tallies in states in the West were significantly lower than the final ones.
  • The net result in these changes of "Win Status" was -3 counties for Bush and +4 for Kerry. Bush won up 2 more counties and Kerry won 4 more.
  • One county went from an election night Tie to a Kerry win (by 7 votes). Kerry picked up a county in Nebraska, his only win there (by 58 votes).
  • Without Alaska, which has no counties, and with DC, the number of county equivalents is 3,113. This includes dropping Clifton Forge in VA and gaining Broomfield in CO.

    ---

  • Break in 2004:
    • Bush: 2,530 (81.2%)
    • Kerry: 583 (18.8%)
  • Break in 2000:
    • Bush: 2,439 (78.3%)
    • Gore: 674 (21.7%)
  • Net over 2000
    • Bush: a net gain of 91 counties over Bush 2000
    • Kerry: a net loss of 91 counties over Gore 2000
  • Note, however, that a total of 224 counties changed winners.

    ---

  • Maps used on our CafePress products are now updated for the final numbers.
  • Find them here: Election Maps Wall Calendar, Coffee Mugs, etc. at cafepress.com/polidata.
  • Note that Broomfield, CO, a new county that voted for Bush in 2004, may not appear on some maps and may be excluded from counts on some maps. (UPDATE: Broomfield Co has been added to the 2004 Presidential maps and the count in this section.)
  • Also, in Hawaii, all four counties voted for Kerry in 2004 and Gore in 2000. It also does not appear on some maps and is excluded from those counts.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Feb 14, 2005: 2004 PRESIDENT BY COUNTY, OFFICIAL RESULTS, DATASET NOW AVAILABLE

  • A dataset is now available containing the official results for the 2004 Presidential Election for all counties and counties equivalents.
    • The dataset is hierarchical and contains one record for each county as well as one record for each state and one record for the national totals.
    • Votes for the following candidates, when available, are included separately: Kerry, Bush, Nader, Badnarik, Peroutka, Cobb. Miscellaneous other candidates are combined into one column.
    • Percentages of all votes are calculated for Kerry and Bush and "others" combined.
    • The only votes not included in the dataset are 422 miscellaneous write-ins in 9 states.
    • The dataset includes the 2000 total poulation and the 2000 voting age population. It does not include any voter registration, turnout or other demographic information.
    • The comparable summary information for 2000 is included for county units for which votes were reported in 2004.
    • Alaska does not have any counties and the only record will be a state-level one.
    • D.C. is included as both a state and a county.
    • County equivalents include parishes in LA and independent cities in several states (MD, VA, MO and NV).
    • County results are included for all states (except AK), including the difficult to process ones in New England.
  • The .zip file contains the following formats for the dataset: .sdf, .csv, and .dbf.
    • .sdf for System Default Format: a flat ASCII format (a .sps DATA LISTING is included.)
    • .csv for Comma Separated Values: an ASCII file with commas delimiting fields.
    • .dbf for DBase/FoxPro 2.0: a database with field names which can be opened in Microsoft Excel as well.
  • The cost of the President by County Dataset is $95.00 and can be obtained via Paypal by clicking the logo below. (A $5 processing charge applies to Paypal orders.)
  • Vote Summary by Candidate:
    • Bush: 62,028,947 (50.7%)
    • Kerry: 59,028,548 (48.3%)
    • Nader: 457,851
    • Badnarik: 396,869
    • Peroutka: 142,792
    • Cobb: 119,358
    • Others: 99,247
    • Total: 122,273,612
    • (The total is 122,274,034 including the 422 votes not in the dataset.)
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Jan 12, 2005: WASHINGTON STATE GOVERNOR'S RACE, GREGOIRE SWORN IN

  • While the Republicans are in court contesting the election, Democrat Christine Gregoire was sworn in as Governor.
  • Republican Rossi won the initial count by 261 votes, won the second count by 42 votes, but lost the third count to Democrat Gregoire by 129 votes.
  • The legal challenge focuses on the perceived irregularities in King County (Seattle), the state's largest county that generally supports Democrats and found new ballots several times during the two recount processes.
  • The latest problems revolve around King County's provision of a list of voter history that means 2,400 ballots were cast for which no voter can be identified, let alone, some 348 provisional ballots that were run through the machines anyway.
  • In order to reflect the new official status, changes have been made in:
    • The Party Control page.
    • The Party Control maps.
    • The Election Maps Wall Calendar, Coffee Mugs, etc. at cafepress.com/polidata.
  • Stay tuned for the result of the court challenge.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Jan 10, 2005: APPORTIONMENT FOR 2010, BASED UPON 2004 ESTIMATES

  • The Bureau of the Census released annual state-level estimates for states as of July 1, 2004. These have been projected by POLIDATA to 2010 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2010 census. Based upon these projections:
    • the biggest gainers are: Florida, up 3 to 28; and Texas, up 3 to 35 seats. The other gainers are: Nevada, up 1 to 4; Utah, up 1 to 4; Arizona, up 1 to 9; and Georgia, up 1 to 14.
    • The biggest losers are: New York, down 2 to 27; and Ohio, down 2 to 16. The other losers are: Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18; Illinois, down 1 to 18; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Iowa, down 1 to 4; Missouri, down 1 to 8; and Michigan, down 1 to 14.
  • See the full press release and maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Jan 4, 2005: POST-ELECTION PARTY CONTROL CHANGES

  • Several changes occurred over the holiday break.
    • Congress: The death of Cong. Robert Matsui (D-CA 5) results in a vacancy in the U.S. House. This does not affect control of the state delegation. The overall count for the 109th House will thus be 232 Republicans, 201 Democrats, 1 Independent and 1 vacancy. A special election will be held in this district in March 2005. (The district voted 63% for Gore in the 2000 Presidential election.) [No change in maps.]
    • Congress: Also, two runoffs in Louisiana were held in December, the parties split with one win each. [Maps have been changed.]
    • Governors: The third count of the votes in Washington state has resulted in a certification of Democrat Christine Gregoire as the new winner by 129 votes. Republican Dino Rossi has been declared Governor-elect after the second count by 42 votes and also led after the first count. The status of this race is still undecided with a contest/challenge by the Republicans likely. [For the moment, no change in maps. We will monitor the situation every week.]
    • State Legislatures: The contest in the Montana House has been decided in favor of the Democrat. The post-election breakdown has been 49 Dems, 50 Reps, and 1 independent. The new breakdown (literally) is a 50-50 tie. [Maps are being changed for this.]
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Jan 2, 2005: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, BUSH V. GORE FOR THE 108TH CONGRESS

  • The death of Congressman Matsui (D-CA) raises the question of the Presidential vote for his district, among others. His Sacramento district was 63.3 to 36.7 for Gore in 2000, 13 points above the national average for Gore.
  • The compilation of the 2004 Bush v. Kerry vote for the 109th Congress continues but results will likely not be available for several months. This project following the 2000 election took until March 2001 to complete.
  • Why is this the case? Basically, because only a handful of states compile their presidential numbers in this fashion. For the vast majority of districts, precinct-level election results are collected from state and local election officials for the 450+ counties which contain a portion of more than one district.
  • You can read more about this year's project at the Presidential Results by Congressional District Project Page.
  • For now, here are the members of the 108th congress in the 'turnover districts', i.e., those whose district vote for President was other than their own party label:
  • BUSH DEMOCRATS (36):
  • AL- 5 Cramer (D); AR- 2 Snyder (D); FL- 2 Boyd (D); GA- 2 Bishop (D); GA- 3 Marshall (D); IN- 9 Hill (D); KS- 3 Moore (D); KY- 4 Lucas (D); LA- 5 Alexander (D); LA- 7 John (D); MI- 1 Stupak (D); MN- 7 Peterson (D); MS- 4 Taylor (D); MO- 4 Skelton (D); NC- 2 Etheridge (D); NC- 7 McIntyre (D); ND-99 Pomeroy (D); OH- 6 Strickland (D); OK- 2 Carson (D); OR- 4 Defazio (D); OR- 5 Hooley (D); PA-17 Holden (D); NC-13 Miller (D); SC- 5 Spratt (D); TN- 4 Davis (D); TN- 6 Gordon (D); TX- 1 Sandlin (D); TX- 2 Turner (D); TX- 4 Hall (D); TX- 9 Lampson (D); TX-11 Edwards (D); TX-17 Stenholm (D); UT- 2 Matheson (D); VA- 9 Boucher (D); WA- 3 Baird (D); WV- 1 Mollohan (D)
  • GORE REPUBLICANS (27):
  • CT- 2 Simmons (R); CT- 4 Shays (R); CT- 5 Johnson (R); DE-99 Castle (R); FL-10 Young (R); FL-22 Shaw (R); IL-10 Kirk (R); IA- 1 Nussle (R); IA- 2 Leach (R); KY- 3 Northup (R); CO- 7 Beauprez (R); NH- 2 Bass (R); NJ- 2 Lobiondo (R); NJ- 3 Saxton (R); NJ- 4 Smith (R); NM- 1 Wilson (R); NY- 3 King (R); NY-13 Fossella (R); NY-25 Walsh (R); NY-27 Quinn (R); GA-12 Burns (R); NV- 3 Porter (R); PA- 6 Gerlach (R); PA- 7 Weldon (R); PA- 8 Greenwood (R); PA-15 Toomey (R); WA- 8 Dunn (R)
  • The overall count for the 108th Congress based upon the 2000 Bush v. Gore vote was: Bush 238 (202 Republicans and 36 Democrats), Gore 197 (169 Democrats, 27 Republicans and 1 Ind-Sanders from Vt).
  • Even this calculation results in a drop of the turnover districts about 25% (from 86 to 63) over the 2000 numbers for the 107th congress elected in 2000. At that point the number was Bush 228 (188 Republicans, 40 Democrats) Gore 207 (160 Democrats, 46 Republicans and 1 Ind-Sanders from VT).
  • Related comments: Reform of the Electoral College, Electoral Vote by Congressional District.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 15, 2004: 2004 ELECTION: LA TIMES ARTICLE: GOP HAS LOCK ON SOUTH AND DEMOCRATS CANT FIND KEY, by Ron Brownstein

  • The article about the GOP Lock on the South by Ron Brownstein can be found at the LA Times site.
  • A map of the counties in the South, comparing the 2004 Bush/Kerry vote with the 1996 Dole/Clinton vote can be found on our site.
  • A map of the all counties, comparing the 2004 Bush/Kerry vote with the 1996 Dole/Clinton vote can be found on our site.
  • The maps can be purchased via the POLIDATA CafePress storefront.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 10, 2004: ARTICLE IN EXTENSIONS, A PUBLICATION OF THE CARL ALBERT CENTER AT THE UNIVERSITY OF OKLAHOMA

  • The article, by Polidata principal consultant Clark Bensen, entitled "Substantial Political Consequences, A Practitioner's Perspective on Redistricting" summarizes some of the practical aspects of drafting redistricting plans for congressional delegations and legislative chambers.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 13, 2004: 2004 ELECTION: GREETING CARDS, COFFEE MUGS, MAPS AND MOUSEPADS AT CAFEPRESS.COM

  • You can now order post-election or pre-holiday items for that political junkie on your list. Just visit the polidata storefront at cafepress.com.
  • There are several different versions of 2004 Election Maps. When the Washington Governor's race is finalized (see below), we will add Governor's and Legislative maps as well.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 12, 2004: 2004 ELECTION: EXIT POLLS MAPS

  • A first look at the ideological break for voters from the 76,000+ voters interviewed on Nov. 2 yields the following statistics:
    • The overall national break was 21% Liberal, 45% Moderate and 34% Conservative.
    • The percentage of Liberals voting for Kerry (85%) was about equal to the percentage of Conservatives voting for Bush (84%).
    • The moderates split 45% for Bush and 54% for Kerry but there was a clear regional difference in the Moderate vote.
  • State-level maps can be viewed for:
    • Liberals. Most liberal: DC, MA, VT, HI and RI.
    • Conservatives. Most Conservative: TN, MS, UT, TX and AL.
    • Moderates. Most Moderate: CT, WI, WV, NH and MD.
    • Moderate Vote. Moderates in the Eastern, Midwestern and West Coast states tended to vote for Kerry. Moderates in the Mountatin West states tended to vote for Kerry. Moderates in the Southern states were mixed. However, Kerry still won the Moderate Vote in all regions and 54% of all Moderates nationwide.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 11, 2004: 2004 ELECTION: WASHINGTON GOVERNOR STILL UNDECIDED?

  • The latest results from the weeklong counting process has Republican Dino Rossi ahead of Demorcrat Christine Gregoire by 3,500 votes.
  • The lead has changed several times in the past week, with Rossi initially ahead but with Gregoire ahead by as much as 9,000 votes by week's end.
  • We will wait a few more days until we update/revise our maps but they would need to be updated.
  • UPDATE 12 NOV: Rossi continues to lead, by about 3,600 votes. However a substantial number of ballots (80,000) are left to be counted and the lawyers are scoping out court options. Looks like it might be a while still. The Polidata maps still have it listed as a Dem seat.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 9, 2004: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY COUNTY ONLINE

  • County-level election results from the election night 2004 media coverage have been converted into a database format. Reports have been generated and maps have been prepared in two color schemes-BLUE for GOP and RED for GOP.
  • Link to the 2004 Election Night Page for these county reports and county maps for 2004 President Bush v. Kerry.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 8, 2004: PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS ONLINE

  • Over the years POLIDATA has worked with both NATIONAL JOURNAL, THE COOK POLITICAL REPORT and CONGRESSIONAL QUARTERLY to compile estimates of the Presidential elections by Congressional District.
  • In most states these numbers are not compiled officially and must be aggregated from precinct-level election results. There are numerous problems, including absentee and early votes, so in many cases the estimated numbers are just that, an estimate of the base political strength for a district. There are no firm or official numbers for some districts.
  • These numbers form the basis for most district-level election analysis and are included in the biennial almanacs: THE ALMANAC OF AMERICAN POLITICS (AAP) or POLITICS IN AMERICA (PIA). However, only the AAP now provides complete election data for each district.
  • In order to facilitate the historical record for these data, listings are being included on this site. Files in .pdf format detailing the Presidential Results by Congressional Districts for 1992, 1994, 1996, 1998, 2000 and 2002 may be found on the STATE BOOK pages that provide the links to the DEMOGRAPHIC GUIDE & ELECTION HISTORY volumes.
  • Several nationwide maps are now available on the Election Maps page.
  • Also, district-level datasets are also available for purchase. Send an email to inquire about the datasets.
  • The 2004 Presidential by CD project is underway with results expected in late Winter or early Spring.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 6, 2004: ELECTION MAPS

  • In order to serve those preferring
    • the traditional BLUE FOR REPUBLICAN as well as
    • the new media choice of RED FOR REPUBLICAN,
  • several State and County Election Maps are now available for review and purchase.
  • also, several State Party Control Maps are now available for review and purchase.
  • This scheme will be implemented for additional high-level (State, County and Congressional District) maps as time allows.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 5, 2004: 2004 ELECTION RESULTS

  • There is still some question in the following races:
    • Washington Governor: absentee ballots are still being counted. As of Saturday, Nov. 6, Gregoire (D) is still ahead, 50.0 to 49.8. For updates see AP/NY Times updates.
    • Montana House: The results are apparently 50R, 49D with 1 Independent and a recount outstanding.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 4, 2004: 2004 ELECTION RESULTS

  • Several party control maps and tables are now available, all based upon preliminary data.
  • PRESIDENT: The Electoral College Map assumes that BUSH wins IA, NM.
  • LEGISLATURES: Preliminary data gathered by the NCSL has been included in the Party Control Maps.
  • SUMMARY:
    • PRESIDENT: States changing party columns: NH: R to D; IA and NM: D to R. Result: Bush 286, Kerry 252.
    • US SENATE: A net pickup of 4 for the GOP (-2, +6). Result: 55 GOP, 44 Dem, 1 Ind.
    • US HOUSE: A net pickup of between 2-4 for the GOP (based upon preliminary overall data). Result: 231 GOP, 201 Dem, Ind 1. [2 runoffs in LA.]
    • GOVERNORS: A net pickup of 0 for the GOP (-2, +2). Result: 28 GOP, 22 Dem. [WA stayed D.]
    • LEGISLATURES: See the Party Control Project for a summary.
  • Don't forget to Vote Your Choice of Blue for Republican or Red for Democrat.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Nov 3, 2004: 2004 ELECTION RESULTS

  • Several party control maps and tables are now available, all based upon preliminary data.
  • PRESIDENT: The Electoral College Map assumes that BUSH wins OH, IA, NM and NV and that Kerry wins WI.
  • LEGISLATURES: Preliminary data gathered by the NCSL has been included in the Party Control Maps.
  • SUMMARY:
    • PRESIDENT: States changing party columns: NH: R to D; IA and NM: D to R. Result: Bush 286, Kerry 252.
    • US SENATE: A net pickup of 4 for the GOP (-2, +6). Result: 55 GOP, 44 Dem, 1 Ind. [Assumes AK and FL go GOP.]
    • US HOUSE: A net pickup of 3 for the GOP (based upon preliminary overall data). Result: 231 GOP 203, Dem 1, Ind. [3 still out.]
    • GOVERNORS: A net pickup of 1 for the GOP (-2, +3). Result: 29 GOP, 21 Dem. [Assumes WA goes GOP].
    • LEGISLATURES: See the Party Control Project for a summary.
  • Don't forget to Vote Your Choice of Blue for Republican or Red for Democrat.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Nov 1, 2004 ELECTORAL COLLEGE MAP

  • Electoral college maps can be viewed here. There are several options:
  • An electoral college base map without any coloration as to the winner in 2000.
  • The electoral college Bush vote with the traditional Blue for Republican, Red for Democrat.
  • The electoral college Bush vote for new media favorite, Red for Republican, Blue for Democrat.
  • Vote your choice of Blue for Republican or Red for Democrat.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Oct 31, 2004 ELECTION NIGHT ONLINE RESOURCES

  • Several POLIDATA online resources for ELECTION NIGHT 2004 ONLINE RESOURCES can now be found online at our www.polidata.org site. Click on any state to see Adobe Acrobat (.pdf) versions for any the following:
  • PRESIDENT VOTE BY COUNTY, 1980 TO 2000
  • STATE ELECTION HISTORY, STATEWIDE RACES, 1982-2002
  • STATE ELECTION HISTORY, PRESIDENT, 1920-2000
  • PRESIDENT BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT, 1992-2000 (in process)
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Sep 14, 2004 COUNTING OVERSEAS AMERCIANS

  • POLIDATA principal consultant, Clark Bensen, delivered comments before the House Government Reform Committee's Subcommittee on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census on September 14 on Capitol Hill. The full committee Chair: Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA). The subcommittee Chair: Adam Putnam (R-FL).
  • Committee website: House Government Reform Committee
  • Find the paper here: The Constitution, The Census and Overseas Americans.
  • Related comments: See the 2010 Projections below.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  July 21, 2004 INCLUDING AMERCIANS OVERSEAS IN THE CENSUS

  • POLIDATA principal consultant, Clark Bensen, delivered comments at the National Conference of State Legislaures (NCSL) Annual Meeting on July 21 in Salt Lake City. The session was entitled "Including Americans Overseas in the Census Counts for Reappportionment and Redistricting: A Special Hearing." No written comments were prepared but a subsequent paper largely mirrors these comments.
  • Related comments: The Constitution, The Census and Overseas Americans.
  • Related comments: See the 2010 Projections below.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Apr 16, 2004 REDISTRICTING SYMPOSIUM

  • POLIDATA principal consultant, Clark Bensen, was a discussant at the Competition, Partisanship, and Congressional Redistricting Symposium, sponsored by the Brookings Institution, held April 16 in Washington, DC. The paper discussed was that of Kim Brace (Election Data Services) on the Impact of Technology on the redistricting process. Other panels included Bruce Cain, Sandy Maisel, Nate Persily, Sam Hirsch, Dale Oldham and Mark Braden. The conference was chaired by Thomas Mann of Brookings.
  • Related comments: Apportionment and Fair Representation, When Equal Population Isn't Fair or Equal,
  • Related comments: See the 2010 Projections below.
  • Related comments: Reform of the Electoral College, Electoral Vote by Congressional District.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Mar 5, 2004 APPORTIONMENT AND FAIR REPRESENTATION

  • POLIDATA principal consultant, Clark Bensen, delivered comments at the Bureau of the Census Symposium, America's Scorecard, The Historic Role of the Census in an Ever-Changing Nation, held March 4-5 in Washington, DC. The paper, Apportionment and Fair Representation, When Equal Population Isn't Fair or Equal, was presented to a panel moderated by John Long of the Bureau. The panel included Prof. Allan Lichtman (American Univ.), Peter Wagner (Prison Policy Initiative), Clark Bensen (POLIDATA), and Prof. Thomas Brunell (Northern Arizona Univ.).
  • Find the paper here: Apportionment and Fair Representation, When Equal Population Isn't Fair or Equal,
  • Related comments: See the 2010 Projections below.
  • Related comments: Reform of the Electoral College, Electoral Vote by Congressional District.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Feb 22, 2004 RED STATES, BLUE STATES, THE COLOR WAR CONTINUES

  • Ever since 1980 elections, the shift of GOP states from BLUE to RED has continued throughout the media. It seems that every election brought another network on board. Now, even Republican politicos are talking in the sense of RED states being GOP states.
  • POLIDATA continues to use the age-old tradition of BLUE for REPUBLICAN, and RED for DEMOCRAT.
  • The Color War may have been lost but for the sake of clarity, couldn't we just refer to the states as REPUBLICAN STATES and DEMOCRAT STATES and leave the colors out of the shorthand discussion?
  • Find the paper here: Red State Blues, Did I Miss That Memo?
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Feb 20, 2004 2004 PRESIDENTIAL UPDATE, BUSH AHEAD IN ELECTORAL COLLEGE COUNT, 278 to 260.

  • The 2000 Presidential election was held under the apportionment from the 1990 Census. Based upon the Apportionment from the 2000 census, the count of electoral votes would change to some degree.
  • If we take the final vote as Bush 271, Gore 267 (discounting the 1 rogue Democrat elector from DC), the shift of 7 seats caused by the 2000 apportionment would make the count Bush 278, Gore, 260.
  • The effect on Bush States (BLUE STATES!) would be a +11 and -4 or +7: AZ +2; CO +1; FL +2; GA +2; IN -1; MS -1; NV +1; NC +1; OH -1; OK -1; and TX +2.
  • The effect on Gore States (RED STATES!) would be a +1 and -8, or -7: CA +1; CT -1; IL -1; MI -1; NY -2; PA -2, and WI -1.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Feb 19, 2004 APPORTIONMENT FOR 2010, BASED UPON 2003 ESTIMATES

  • The Bureau of the Census released annual estimates for states as of July 1, 2003. These have been projected by POLIDATA to 2010 for a preliminary look at a possible shift of seats based upon the 2010 census. Based upon these projections:
    • the biggest gainers are: Texas, up 3 to 35 seats; California, up 2 to 55; and Florida, up 2 to 27. The other gainers are: Nevada, up 1 to 4; Utah, up 1 to 4; Arizona, up 1 to 9; and Georgia, up 1 to 14.
    • The losing states would be New York, down 2 to 27 and Ohio, down 2 to 16. The other losers are: Massachusetts, down 1 to 9; Pennsylvania, down 1 to 18; Illinois, down 1 to 18; Minnesota, down 1 to 7; Iowa, down 1 to 4; Missouri, down 1 to 8; and Louisiana, down 1 to 6.
  • See the full press release and maps at the census portal.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Feb 11, 2004 GEORGIA REAPPORTIONMENT DECISION, Larios v. Cox (N.D., GA)

  • We have been quite busy on reapportionment matters for much of the past few years. The most recent case was the GA legislative and congressional cases, for which an opinion was issued yesterday. The opinion was a comprehensive one that relied heavily on REYNOLDS V. SIMS, 377 U.S. 533 (1964), affirming the concept that 10% overall range was a rebuttable presumption, and ROMAN V. SINCOCK, 377 U.S. 695 (1964), affirming the concept that the 10% is not a safe harbor and that whatever is done within the 10% needs to be applied consistently and for a legitimate state interest without a taint of abritrariness or discrimination. The keys here were regional/political discrimination and disparate treatment of incumbents. Both plans had an overall range of 9.98% with very high average deviations (3.47% and 3.78% in the House and Senate) which indicated that the legislature had not made a good faith effort at achieving population equality. Moreover, the impact on Republican incumbents was far more severe than that on Democrats. Nearly one half of the House and Senate caucuses were paired in the plans. The congressional case turned on whether the 72 person deviation was justified by the state. The court took a very narrow view on this and decided that the threshold for justification wasn't very high. The opinion can be found at www.gand.uscourts.gov (Larios v. Cox).
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Mar 16, 2003 NEW WEBSITE FOR PUBLICATION INFORMATION

  • We are slowly transitioning to a new web presence at www.polidata.org. Information on new publications will be found there.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  Mar 21, 2002. WINNER-TAKE-SOME, THE NEW ELECTORAL LOCK

  • Today's op-ed column from George Will addresses the misguided proposal in some states to count the electoral votes by congressional districts. Once again, this was a topic which was discussed in detail last year following our wrap-up of the presidential votes by congressional district. In fact, a full review of this issue can still be found here, see below for more info (March 25,2001).
  • (Note: As some readers are aware, POLIDATA, while providing some of this information to the press elite, remains in the background while others get the credit. We still have our supporters who recognize our contribution to political data analysis. But, for the record, this issue was addressed in a memo available on our website and sent out to several noted persons last year in March of 2001. One of these persons included Michael Barone, once again listed as the main source by Mr. Will. Behold the power of ink!)
  • Nevertheless, the issue deserves discussion at more than just the level of federalism. On balance, the proposal appears to have more reasons CON than PRO. As one intimately involved in the districting phase of the reapportionment process, the prospect of electing our nation's leader on the basis of these districts gives one pause.
  • We have seen the decline of marginal congressional elections over the past few generations. This may just as well lock in the results of a presidential election for the decade as well. Similarly, it could do nothing but increase the influence of non-citizens on the Presidential election. In California, the ratio of votes cast in the district with the largest number of votes to the smallest number of votes was more than 3 to 1. California gets credit for as much as 5 extra congressional seats as the congressional apportionment takes into account persons, not citizens. Noncitizens, who can not register to vote, let alone enter the polling place to cast a ballot, do indirectly vote for President already. Such a method would merely transfer the "cheap seats" scenario to the Presidential election.
  • Perhaps most frightening to the prospect of avoiding a repeat of 2000 is the equally daunting prospect of recounts in congressional districts around the nation to determine who the winner of Presidential election was. One can only guess the impact of close congressional districts (there will be a few) and having the media make a wrong call on election night. The winner won't be known for weeks, if not months.
  • More importantly, if California opts for this method, (and Republicans don't control much of anything here), then nascent efforts in states controlled by the Democrats may well be the logical reaction to counteract the putative gain by Republicans.
  • Winner-Take-All may have it's flaws but, on balance, 2000 notwithstanding, it is a fairer way to assure that the will of people is not thwarted.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 28, 2001. STATE POPULATION ESTIMATES FOR JULY 1, 2001.

  • The Census Bureau estimates that the national resident population has increased 3.4 million persons (1.12%) since the April 1, 2000 census.
  • National totals for Total Resident Population (50 states+DC):
    • Jul 1, 2001 Estimates: 284,796,887 (1.12% higher than Apr 1, 2000) (0.95% higher than Jul 1, 2000)
    • Jul 1, 2000 Estimates: 282,124,631 (0.25% higher than Apr 1, 2000)
    • Apr 1, 2000 Census: 281,421,906 (13% higher than Apr 1990)
  • Population Table (from the Bureau)
  • Population Shifts, Apr 2000 to Jul 2001 (POLIDATA MAP)
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Dec 28, 2001. CONGRESSIONAL APPORTIONMENT ESTIMATES FOR 2001

  • The Census Bureau has released the first post-2000 census estimates of the population for states.
  • Were these estimates used to apportion seats in the U.S. House, there would have been a handful of shifts over the actual apportionment made in December of 2000.
  • Two states would be likely losers under the new numbers:
    • IA would lose 1 seat, dropping from 5 to 4
    • OH would lose 1 seat, dropping from 18 to 17.
  • Two states would be likely gainers under the new numbers:
    • TX would gain 1 seat, increasing from 32 to 33
    • UT would gain 1 seat, increasing from 3 to 4
  • These latest estimates do not include any overseas persons, a topic which was the subject of a lawsuit by Utah which argued that some 11,000 overseas missionaries should have been included. It lost that lawsuit but based upon the new numbers it would now have over 5,500 extra persons to get a 4th seat, just a little too late.
  • Several other states were fairly close to the cutoff of the 435th seat (actually only 385 are apportioned under the formula). NC was ranked at 434, with some 22,200 persons extra. IA was ranked at 436, being short some 7,100 persons. MT was ranked at 444, being short some 22,200 persons.
  • NV and UT continued to grow at quick rates, increasing 5.25 and 3.2% respectively over the 15 month period covered by the new estimates.
  • 10 states and DC continued to lose population (though DC's loss has slowed).
  • 26 states increased at least 1.0% over the 15 months period, including NH, DE and MD.
  • Maps illustrating a theoretical apportionment are included on the site:
    • Population Shifts, 2000 to 2001
    • States Gaining/Losing Seats for 2001 Estimates
    • States near the cutoff of 435
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  May 20, 2001. GEORGE (WILL) AND RODNEY (DANGERFIELD)

  • The Washington Post Outlook section today carried a piece by columnist George Will citing data recently released by POLIDATA for the 2000 Presidential Results by Congressional Districts. (See the PRCD Project Page or the PRCD Report Page.)
  • Of course, as with the other suppliers of data to Mr. Will's research staff, no mention was made of the sources. The most logical inference from the column is that Michael Barone, the founder of the Almanac of American Politics (AAP) is the sole source. Not so.
  • The media, through Voter News Services (VNS), polling companies, and several universities, many of them funded from public coffers or large endowments, undertake the valuable surveys, both ongoing and at the polls on election day. As there are numerous sources for this information it is sometimes difficult to adequately source them.
  • The Presidential Results by Congressional District project, on the other hand, has never had more than a handful of sources and has always enjoyed an empathy with the respect problem of Rodney Dangerfield. Many media folks are cautious enough to ask questions and/or understand the complexity involved in the development of this dataset, (it took over 500 hours to compile from state and local election officials in over 400 counties). Some, apparently, can't understand why this information isn't just available immediately following the election and, of course, for free and in the public domain.
  • As a matter of fact, there has been only one study released to date which provides the district-by-district results for the 2000 Presidential election. Yes, the POLIDATA study, with the backing of a handful of sponsors (See the PRCD Project Page or the PRCD Report Page.).
  • Likewise, POLIDATA was the source of the county-by-county split for Bush to Gore (78% to 22%) in the Will piece, (see below for Dec 28,2000. but, once again, one is left to infer that the AAP is the source of this information.
  • Don't get me wrong, the AAP is an invaluable source for much of this type of information and the only other source for the Presidential Results by Congressional District other than POLIDATA and Congressional Quarterly. However, the source for the information used by Mr. Will was not the AAP but POLIDATA.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  Mar 25, 2001. THIS JUST IN, NIXON BEATS KENNEDY...ELECTORAL VOTES BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS (EVCD)

  • The Washington Post Outlook section today carried a piece by political analyst Rhodes Cook using the data recently released by POLIDATA for the 2000 Presidential Results by Congressional Districts. (See the PRCD Project Page or the PRCD Report Page.)
  • For those readers intrigued with this modified plan for the Electoral College, we offer the following thoughts on the application of such a district-based plan.
  • Bear in mind that the primary motivation is presumably to reduce the disparity between the winner's percentage of the popular vote and the percentage of the Electoral College.
  • Ironically, such a modified method would have had the opposite effect in 2000, the only election of the 13 studied that would have INCREASED the disparity.
  • Also, under such a universally applied method, Bush would have won the Presidency even without winning Florida. The loss of Florida would have been only a loss of -2 for the statewide electoral votes as the 13 Bush CDs would have been added to the Bush column under this method. A Florida loss would have reduced the modified vote from an estimated 288-250 to 286-252. Bush would have lost nationally under the modified plan only by losing 17 more CDs or 9 more states or some combination thereof. The battle would have expanded to the 15 states which had Presidential contests decided by less than 2% of the vote.
  • Note also that any analysis of a district-based plan applies it retroactively and assumes it would have been applied uniformly, i.e., nationally. Of course, in several states were the most district votes would be gained by either party, it is not likely that party in control of the legislature would adopt a plan that would disadvantage their presidential nominee.
  • Pro:
    1. An improvement in the proportionality between the popular vote and the electoral vote. (Generally true, but NOT in 2000.)
    2. An improvement with a preservation of the importance of the federal scheme of government in the American Republic, i.e., small state vis-à-vis large state, compared to an outright abolition of the Electoral College.
    3. A change in the campaign operation of any presidential campaign with a focus on grassroots organization versus mass media (perhaps).
    4. Increased interest on the part of voters in states that would not otherwise be contested at the state level, e.g., states that consistently vote one way for President but have districts that vote the opposite.
    5. It could encourage the more equal distribution of every citizen's vote if votes were equalized across district. On the other hand, it could increase the gerrymandering of districts to assure the presidential vote.
    6. Would encourage the elimination of the "faithless elector".
    7. Can be accomplished without an amendment to the federal Constitution.
  • Con:
    1. Could perpetuate the "rotten borough" problem due to the current jurisprudential focus on equality of population without regard to the distribution of voters amongst districts. In 2000, 50% of the members of the U.S. House in the districts with the fewest number of votes in the presidential election represented only 42% of the votes cast in the presidential election.
    2. Would exacerbate the unequal voting weight that occurs over the decade by population shifts by locking-in voters in fast-growing suburban districts.
    3. Could fall into the same legal problems that the 'unit system' did in the South before the Civil Rights Era.
    4. Could complicate the election process of determining the winner even in races that aren't very close on a national level.
    5. Whereas many congressional contests are not close, many results for President in districts are close. Even assuming split precincts are eliminated (which they must be), recounts in more districts would be inevitable. Over a dozen districts in 2000 were decided by less than 1% for President.
    6. The existence of split precincts and centrally counted absentee, or early, ballots would require local election officials to a) revise their precinct boundaries to avoid precincts split by a congressional boundary line and b) tally all absentee votes back to precincts (both good reforms). The presence of split precincts and centrally counted absentees could require more time than is available on election night to local officials. Much advance planning would be required to facilitate appropriate designation of all votes to districts and quick aggregation.
  • Pro or Con?
    1. It would greatly lessen the impact large states have on the political process as blocs of winner-take-all units.
    2. It would greatly increase the importance of minor parties on elections in close, swing districts.
    3. The use of districts for the Electoral College would fundamentally alter the redistricting phase of the apportionment process.
  • POLIDATA Home Page.
  The Electoral Vote by Congressional District analysis can be found here, summarizing the elections from 1952 to 2000, or send an email request to info@polidata.org.

  ---

  Mar 17, 2001. PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICTS, Preliminary Summary (PRCD)
  The first data from this months-long study are now available from Polidata. The project was undertaken with the support of the RNC, the NRCC and the Cook Political Report. For further information, see the PRCD Project Page or the PRCD Report Page.

  ---

  Mar 06, 2001. UNADJUSTED NUMBERS ARE THE OFFICIAL NUMBERS
  Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans has accepted the recommendation of the Bureau of the Census, (see ESCAP report below), and decided that the official data released for the purposes of apportionment will be the unadjusted counts from the enumeration. The first states are to be released this week.
  Also, in a related evelopment, the Bureau has established a new web page for redistricting information. See the Redistricting Data Program page.

  ---

  Mar 02, 2001. ESCAP REPORT A preliminary review of some of the material in the ESCAP report produces the following items:

  • The ESCAP concluded that while both the Census and the A.C.E. were of high quality, it noted an "inconsistency between the demographic analysis estimates [annual estimates based upon administrative records] and the A.C.E. estimates" which prevented it from concluding "that adjustment would improve accuracy."
  • "The primary reason for arriving at this conclusion is the apparent inconsistency in population growth over the decade as estimated by the A.C.E. and demographic analysis." As we noted upon release of the apportionment numbers in December of 2000, the total population for the nation (281.4 million) was considerably higher than any projections based upon Bureau estimates released annually throughout the decade.
  • The estimated net undercount nationally was 1.18%, compared to the 1.59% for 1990, and it was reduced over the estimate for 1990 for almost all population subgroups. Groups with the highest net undercount rate continue to be a) American Indians (4.74% on, 3.25% off reservations); b) Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islanders (4.60%); c) Hispanics (2.85%); d) Blacks (2.17%); e) Asians (0.96%); f) Whites (0.67%).
  • The breakout of the net undercount rate by age groups remained about the same as 1990 with 18-29 being the group with the largest undercount. The estimated undercount rate for children was cut in half, from 3.18% in 1990 to 1.54%.
  • The only real increase in the net undercount rate by subgroup was for homeowners, which went from 0.04% in 1990 to 0.44% in 2000. The rate for renters was substantially reduced from 4.51% in 1990 to 2.75% in 2000.
  • The report also addressed distributive accuracy, concluding that "smaller counties would have been less accurate".
  • The report also reiterated its reversal of its longstanding belief on the quality of block-level data in the accuracy evaluation and focused on the non-random aggregation of congressional districts as a valid unit of measure. If this was a report designed to evaluate the data for use in redistricting, the block level was the key. Blocks are the lowest common denominator for redistricting.
  • The report also took another opportunity to disavow any notion that census questionnaires would be deleted in any adjustment. Rather, "the downward adjustment [adjusting for overcounting] is accomplished by creating statistical records with negative weights..".
  • Likewise, the report relayed the direction under which it worked pursuant to a Commerce Dept opinion that the Supreme Court ruling in January 1999 required the Bureau to "produce statistically corrected numbers ... for all non-apportionment purposes." The key phrase here is "apportionment purposes". From a jurisprudential perspective, redistricting is an apportionment purpose; therefore, the ruling would have barred the use of these data anyway.

  ---

  Mar 01, 2001. ADJUSTMENT DECISION

  • The Bureau of the Census, charged with reviewing the data gathered from the post-enumeration survey of households (the A.C.E.), has decided to NOT recommend that the adjusted data be used for the districting phase of the apportionment process. This means that the Bureau recommends "that unadjusted census data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data."
  • The internal review board, the Executive Steering Committee for Accuracy and Coverage Evaluation Policy (ESCAP), reviewed a wide variety of evidence.
  • The ESCAP committee concluded that "demographic analysis comparisons, and possible issues related to synthetic and balancing error, preclude a determination at this time that the adjusted data are more accurate."
  • Following the recommendation of the ESCAP, the Acting Director of the Bureau, William Barron, supported the report and recommended to Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans that "unadjusted data be released as the Census Bureau's official redistricting data."
  • You can find the report and supporting materials at the census website.

  ---

  Jan 05, 2001. APPORTIONMENT AND ADJUSTMENT Today's article in the Washington Post about the Evans confirmation includes a statement attributed to Senator John McCain (R-AZ) that adjustment would have shifted a seat to Arizona.

  1. The one thing that was agreed upon by all sides in the GLAVIN v. CLINTON case (Jan. 1999), was that adjustment could not be used "for apportionment purposes". This means, at least, that the numbers used for the apportionment last week were not to be adjusted.
  2. Senator McCain is partially correct. Had the 1990 apportionment been adjusted by the Post-Enumeration Survey estimated rates of undercount, as they were released in July 1991, AZ would have picked up a seat. This adjustment would have shifted two seats, from PA and WI to CA and AZ.
  3. The 1990 PES estimated rates of undercount were revised in 1992, substantially reducing the estimate of the undercount, nationally from 2.1% to 1.6%. Had the 1990 apportionment been adjusted by the 1992 Revised PES rates, AZ would not have picked up a seat. The shift would have been only one seat, from WI to CA.
  4. If adjustment were to be applied to the 2000 Census Apportionment counts, the shift would have been one seat, from OH (making it -2) to TX (making it +3).

  ---

  Jan. 02, 2001. REDISTRICTING CONTROL MAPS
  Our Data & Maps Group now includes Redistricting Control Maps for the initial responsibility for the drawing of boundaries for Congress and the State Legislatures.
  Note: these maps only reflect the initial responsibility and are to be used as a guideline only. For more detailed information, contact each state (see our state links page) or the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) via email: tim.storey@ncsl.org and inquire about their fine 3-volume set of Redistricting Manuals (the Red Book, the Blue Book, and the Yellow Book).

  ---

  Jan. 01, 2001. PARTY CONTROL MAPS
  Our Data & Maps Group now includes Party Control Maps for the post-2000-election party control of Governors and State Legislatures, and Races Up in 2002. The Projects Group now includes a Party Control listing.

  ---

  Dec 29, 2000. APPORTIONMENT FACTOIDS
  These have been moved to a new separate page for eaiser printing and reference.

  ---

  Dec 29, 2000. NATIONAL AND REGIONAL TOTALS FOR 2000 CENSUS.

  • Total Resident Population (50 states+DC) 281,421,906 (13% higher than 1990)
  • Total Overseas Population (50 states+DC) 576,367 (37% lower than 1990)
  • Total Apportionment Population (50 states only) 281,424,177 (13% higher than 1990)
  • Total Population (50 states+DC+Puerto Rico): 285,230,516
  • Northeast: 53,594,378 (+5.5%)
  • Midwest: 64,392,776 (+7.9%)
  • South: 100,236,820 (+17.3%)
  • West: 63,197,932 (+19.7%)
  • Puerto Rico: 3,808,610 (+8.1%)

  ---

  Dec 28, 2000. APPORTIONMENT OF THE U.S. HOUSE, FOR THE 108TH-112TH CONGRESSES.
  These have been moved to a new separate page for eaiser printing and reference.

  ---

  Dec 28, 2000. PRESIDENT BY COUNTY
  As a follow-up to the Presidential Election.

  States won by Bush:	30	1999 Pop: 135,587,324 (49.7%)	2000 Res Pop: 140,626,203 (49.99%)	2000 App Pop: 140,966,678 (49.99%)
  States won by Gore:	21	1999 Pop: 137,103,489 (50.3%)	2000 Res Pop: 140,795,703 (50.01%)	2000 App Pop: 141,031,595 (50.01%)
  Counties won by Bush:	2,480	1999 Population:	144,887,369 (53.1%)
  Counties won by Gore:	674	1999 Population:	127,803,386 (46.9%)
  CDs won by Bush:		in progress
  CDs won by Gore:		in progress

  
  Notes: 1. App. Pop. above includes the resident population plus overseas population and includes DC in the calculations.
  2. While we are still in the process of compiling the results for all 435 Congressional Districts, it is clear the Bush won more Democrat seats (mostly in the Ohio River Basin and the South) than Gore won Republican seats (mostly in the Northeast). More information on this project can be found at our PRCD portal.

  ---

  Dec 24, 2000. PAYPAL PAYMENTS
  We have started using PAYPAL for online payments. How does a buyer purchase an item from the Web Accept button on my website? When a buyer wishes to purchase your item, he or she will click on the Web Accept button and be directed to enter their credit card, shipping information, and email address. Once they have submitted this information, you will be sent an email informing you of the purchase with the buyer's email address and shipping information, and your PayPal account will be credited with the total amount of the purchase minus transaction fees. The buyer will then be sent back to the link you have specified that they return to. During the purchase process, the buyer is not directed into the PayPal site.

  ---

  Dec 21, 2000. OFFICIAL COUNTY-LEVEL RESULTS DATABASE
  We have now finished the collection and processing phase of the 2000 Presidential race for all 3,140 county equivalents in the nation. This was generally made easier by the internet but the typical problems still were evident: a few states didn't provide much on their websites and, of course, New England continues to focus on town-level data. We have aggregated up to the counties for these cases and continue to use the legislative district for Alaska. The database will include the 1996 results as well, one record per county, delivered via email in a .zip file which includes several formats (.dbf database format, .csv comma separated value, or .sdf system default format, i.e., fixed field width). Any format should be easily opened in FoxPro, Excel or Access. Cost for the database is $175 via email, add for shipping and/or sales tax to VA addresses. If you want both the database and the Volume I book on CDROM, the price is only $225.00 plus shipping and/or tax.

  ---

  Dec 8, 2000. APPORTIONMENT AND THE PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION
  If the apportionment to be implemented as a result of the 2000 census were in force for the 2000 Presidential election, (as it currently stands with Bush as the certified winner of FL), the results would be a net gain of 6 votes for Bush. If it is now Bush 271, Gore 267; it would be Bush 277, Gore 261. This shift of 6 seats would increase Bush's lead from 4 electoral votes to 16.

  ---

  Dec 7, 2000. PRESIDENTIAL RESULTS BY CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
  Review the new PRCD Portal, for updates on the status of this months-long effort to compile the results of the Presidential election for all 435 congressional districts of the 107th congress.

  ---

  Nov 26, 2000. ELECTION MAPS for PRESIDENT, 1952 to 2000 NOW AVAILABLE
  Review the Maps Available, viewable here as .gif files. These will be updated as final numbers are collected.

  ---

  Nov 21, 2000. ELECTION RESULTS for 2000 PRESIDENT
  STATES AND COUNTIES, Vol. 1, NOW AVAILABLE ON CDROM
  We have converted the web-based results into our normal database format and generated a CDROM version of Volume 1 of our PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION 2000 SET. ORDER IT TODAY FOR $225 AND GET A FREE FINAL COPY IN THE SPRING. It includes Part 1-STATE MAPS & LISTINGS, Part 2-COUNTY MAPS & LISTINGS, Part 3-STATE MINI-REPORTS. Review the Table of Contents here as a .pdf file. These are preliminary data based upon election night data from the news services, use with caution!

  ---

  Nov 10, 2000. ELECTION RESULTS for 2000 PRESIDENT
  We are beginning to convert the web-based results into our normal database format. Until we get the final votes from the states, the listings and maps will be available here in .pdf format. See the www.polidata.org/en2000. These are preliminary data based upon election night data from the news services, use with caution!

  ---

  PREVIOUS MATERIAL HAS REMOVED DUE TO SPACE LIMITATIONS

  May 22, 1997. The first version of this web was published during May 1997. The primary initial effort has been made to provide basic information on the company, POLIDATA, and the publications division, Demographic and Political Guides. Expanded coverage of our services division, Political Data Analysis will be forthcoming. Soon thereafter work will begin on the development of the On-Line Library, which will contain demographic profiles, election results and occasional papers and analytical notes.

• POLIDATA Home Page.

  ---

  COPYRIGHT © 1995-2021, Clark H. Bensen. All Rights Reserved. Polidata ® Demographic and Political Guides.

  
  Contact information. EMAIL: info@polidata.org.
  HOME: www.polidata.org. THIS: https://www.polidata.org/news.htm updated: 2021-08-11