A Look At 2010 Reapportionment
by Chris Bowers, Fri Dec 29, 2006 at 10:43:12 AM EST
Following the 2010 elections, there will be minor, though important, shifts in the electoral landscape for the House of Representatives and for the Electoral College:According to an analysis by Polidata, a political data consulting firm, seven states are all but certain to lose at least one seat: Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Missouri, New York, Ohio and Pennsylvania. Another six states are all but certain to gain at least one seat: Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Utah.
A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats. This means the following:
For a while, it was conventional wisdom that long-term electoral trends looked bad for Democrats, because "red" areas of the country were experiencing much larger population growth than were "blue" areas of the country. However, Democrats can more than offset coming "red state" reapportionment increases by shifting the partisan status of individual states. If Virginia were to become a true swing state, Colorado were to become lean Democratic, and Pennsylvania were to become safe Democratic, then the Republican advantage gained from at least three decades worth of red state population gains would be entirely wiped out. Actually, the comparative advantage Democrats would gain from such a shift would be far greater.
Democrats should not concern themselves with the incremental changes that will happen to the Electoral College and House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 census. If the 2006 taught us anything, it is that the paradigm of the evenly split nation we saw in 2000 and 2004 is by no means permanent. If for some reason the nation in 2012 is identical to the nation in 2004, then yes we will have cause for concern from these numbers. However, our much greater concern would be that after what will then have been fourteen years of movement building, we would not have made any serious inroads into currently "red" areas. The goal of the progressive movement is not just to trim around the edges and turn an excruciatingly narrow Republican "majority" into an excruciatingly narrow Democratic majority. If all goes well, these reapportionment losses will be but a minor setback in an era otherwise dominated by repeatedly strong Democratic and progressive gains.
A few other interesting projections from Polidata: Texas could pick up as many as 4 congressional seats; New York and Ohio could lose 2 seats. California, for the first time since statehood, may not pick up any seats. This means the following:
- Republicans control the trifecta in several of the fastest growing states: Florida, Georgia, Texas and Utah. Unless non-partisan redistricting boards are created in those states, this will give them total control over the new congressional maps in those states.
- "Safe" Republican states in terms of the electoral college will gain electoral votes, while "safe" Democratic states in terms of the electoral college will lose votes.
For a while, it was conventional wisdom that long-term electoral trends looked bad for Democrats, because "red" areas of the country were experiencing much larger population growth than were "blue" areas of the country. However, Democrats can more than offset coming "red state" reapportionment increases by shifting the partisan status of individual states. If Virginia were to become a true swing state, Colorado were to become lean Democratic, and Pennsylvania were to become safe Democratic, then the Republican advantage gained from at least three decades worth of red state population gains would be entirely wiped out. Actually, the comparative advantage Democrats would gain from such a shift would be far greater.
Democrats should not concern themselves with the incremental changes that will happen to the Electoral College and House of Representatives as a result of the 2010 census. If the 2006 taught us anything, it is that the paradigm of the evenly split nation we saw in 2000 and 2004 is by no means permanent. If for some reason the nation in 2012 is identical to the nation in 2004, then yes we will have cause for concern from these numbers. However, our much greater concern would be that after what will then have been fourteen years of movement building, we would not have made any serious inroads into currently "red" areas. The goal of the progressive movement is not just to trim around the edges and turn an excruciatingly narrow Republican "majority" into an excruciatingly narrow Democratic majority. If all goes well, these reapportionment losses will be but a minor setback in an era otherwise dominated by repeatedly strong Democratic and progressive gains.
Tags: Redistricting (all tags)
-----------
myDD - skin
-----------
19 Comments