Final U.S House electoral vote total

by Adam T, Sat Jan 13, 2007 at 09:07:40 AM EST

Bumped--Chris

Indiana and Mississippi finally posted final election returns. Unfortunaly, Mississippi is also making changes to their Secretary of State website, and by the time I got back to get their numbers, the website was down.

So, this isn't 100% final as the Mississippi totals are from the CNN website. Still, I doubt there were large differences between the two. I'm doing this now rather than waiting because I have time to post this now. I'll edit Mississippi when their web site is back up.

Total vote: 80,121,069
Democratic: 42,339,571 52.8% 420 candidates
Republican: 35,938,282 44.9% 391 candidates
Other.....: 1,843,266 2.3%

This total covers 430 Congressional districts. Florida had 5 districts where Democrats were reelected by acclamation and did not appear on the ballot. In all other states, candidates facing no challenger still appear on the ballot.

This is all from the November elections. Not the runoffs.

Over the flip is state by state totals

Alabama: 1,140,152 7 districts
Democratic: 502,046 44.0% (6 candidates)
Republican: 627,501 55.0% (5 candidates)

Alaska: 234,645
Democratic: 93,879 40.0%
Republican: 132,743 56.6%

Arizona: 1,493,150 8 districts
Democratic: 627,259 42.0% (7 candidates)
Republican: 771,246 51.7%

Arkansas: 768,228
Democratic: 457,899 59.6%
Republican: 310,359 40.4%

California: 8,295,816 (53 districts)
Democratic: 4,720,164 56.9% (52 candidates)
Republican: 3,314,398 40.0% (46 candidates)

Colorado: 1,538,908 (7 disticts)
Democratic: 832,888 54.1%
Republican: 623,784 40.5% (6 candidates)

Connecticut: 1,074,739
Democratic: 648,653 60.4%
Republican: 419,895 39.1%

Delaware: 251,694
Democratic: 97,565 38.8%
Republican: 143,897 57.2%

Florida: 3,851,942 (25 districts)
Democratic: 1,599,968 41.5% (19 candidates)
Republican: 2,182,833 56.7% (19 candidates)
(includes the disputed district)

Georgia: 2,070,307 (13 districts)
Democratic: 932,143 45.0%
Republican: 1,138,048 55.0% (12 candidates)

Hawaii: 337,944
Democratic: 219,810 65.0%
Republican: 118,134 35.0%

Idaho: 445,306
Democratic: 177,376 39.8%
Republican: 248,105 55.7%

Illinois: 3,452,582 (19 districts)
Democratic: 1,986,431 57.5%
Republican: 1,442,526 41.8% (18 candidates)

Indiana: 1,666,922
Democratic: 812,496 48.7%
Republican: 831,785 49.9%

Iowa: 1,032,981
Democratic: 492,937 47.7%
Republican: 522,388 50.6%

Kansas: 845,127
Democratic: 369,191 43.7%
Republican: 459,267 54.3%

Kentucky: 1,253,526 (6 districts)
Democratic: 601,723 48.0%
Republican: 611,780 48.8% (5 candidates)

Louisiana 902,498 (7 districts)
Democratic: 295,762 32.8% (6 candidates)
Republican: 579,702 64.2%

Maine: 535,935
Democratic: 350,721 65.4%
Republican: 163,165 30.4%

Maryland: 1,701,202 (8 districts)
Democratic: 1,099,441 64.6%
Republican: 546,862 32.1% (6 candidates)

Massachusetts: 1,923,657 (10 districts)
Democratic: 1,632,307 84.9%
Republican: 198,550 10.3% (3 candidates)

Michigan: 3,648,502 (15 districts)
Democratic: 1,923,485 52.7%
Republican: 1,624,865 44.5% (13 candidates)

Minnesota: 2,178,974
Democratic: 1,152,621 52.9%
Republican: 924,636 42.4%

Mississippi: 582,527 (from CNN)
Democratic: 251,415
Republican: 295,968

Missouri: 2,097,322
Democratic: 992,258 47.3%
Republican: 1,049,346 50.0%

Montana: 406,125
Democratic: 158,916 39.1%
Republican: 239,124 58.9%

Nebraska: 596,087
Democratic: 261,910 43.9%
Republican: 339,177 56.1%

Nevada: 574,827
Democratic: 287,879 50.1%
Republican: 260,317 45.3%

New Hampshire: 402,354
Democratic: 209,434 52.1%
Republican: 189,615 47.1%

New Mexico: 561,084
Democratic: 313,124 55.8%
Republican: 247,825 44.2%

New Jersey: 2,136,842 (13 districts)
Democratic: 1,207,784 56.5%
Republican: 903,176 42.3% (11 candidates)

New York: 4,140,378 (29 districts)
Democratic: 2,794,262 67.5%
Republican: 1,338,518 32.3% (25 candidates)

North Carolina: 1,940,808 (13 districts)
Democratic: 1,026,915 52.9%
Republican: 913,893 47.1% (12 candidates)

North Dakota: 217,621
Democratic: 142,934 65.7%
Republican: 74,687 34.3%

Ohio: 3,961,195
Democratic: 2,081,737 52.6%
Republican: 1,870,390 47.2%

Oklahoma: 905,194
Democratic: 372,888 41.2%
Republican: 518,025 57.2%

Oregon: 1,357,434
Democratic: 765,853 56.4%
Republican: 557,491 41.1%

Pennsylvania: 4,013,388 (19 districts)
Democratic: 2,229,091 55.5%
Republican: 1,732,163 43.2% (17 candidates)

Rhode Island: 373,148 (2 districts)
Democratic: 264,949 71.0%
Republican: 66,363 11.2% (1 candidate)

South Carolina: 1,086,236
Democratic: 472,719 43.5%
Republican: 599,615 55.2%

South Dakota: 333,562
Democratic: 230,468 69.1%
Republican: 97,864 29.3%

Tennessee: 1,715,426
Democratic: 860,861 50.2%
Republican: 799,547 46.6%

Texas: 4,179,699 (32 districts)
Democratic: 1,852,611 44.3% (31 candidates)
Republican: 2,183,833 52.2% (28 candidates)

Utah: 569,690
Democratic: 244,483 42.9%
Republican: 292,235 51.3%

Vermont: 262,726
Democratic: 139,815 53.2%
Republican: 117,023 44.5%

Virginia: 2,297,236 (11 districts)
Democratic: 947,103 41.2%
Republican: 1,222,790 53.2%

Washington: 2,054,056
Democratic: 1,244,095 60.6%
Republican: 798,005 38.9%

Wisconsin: 2,63,413 (8 districts)
Democratic: 1,003,156 48.6% (7 candidates)
Republican: 1,040,071 50.4%

West Virginia: 454,813
Democratic: 263,822 58.0%
Republican: 190,893 42.0%

Wyoming: 193,141
Democratic: 92,324 47.8%
Republican: 93,336 48.3%

I'll be posting a series of numerical analysis over the next several days. If anybody has any suggestions, go ahead. The only thing I know I don't have is the 2004 presidential numbers for each congressional district.

Tags: Congress, election results (all tags)

Comments

34 Comments

Sort by

permalink

Analysis

Let's see which states are the most gerrymandered.

So for instance, take the total two-party vote and find each party's percetnage of that vote and then multiply that by the number of districts in the state (excluding single-member districts obviously). Then we could see in which states the built-in advantages of redistricting saved the republicans from even worse losses this time around. Ohio could be the worst offender of the bunch:

Democratic Share of two-party vote: 52.6%
Republican Share of two-party vote: 47.3%

Total Number of Districts: 18
Potential Dem Districts: 9 (rounded from 9.48)

Potential Rep Districts: 9 (rounded from 8.51)

Actual Dem Districts: 7
Actual Rep Districts: 11

by adamterando 2007-01-13 04:00AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis

And to add to the frustration, there was a lot of ticket splitting in Ohio. Democrats did really well in statewide races--like US Senate, Governor, Attorney General, etc--but had a hard time in local State House races. As a result Republicans are still in control of the State House and will still be able to gerrymander the State come 2010, unless Democrats do better in the down-ticket races over the next two elections.

by gunnar 2007-01-13 03:46PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis

As long as Strickland can get re-elected, the map should be friendlier to Democrats this time around. Ohio is due to lose a seat. Strickland might be able to at least force the GOP to take the loss if nothing else, assuming the legislature decides these things (I thought I had read somewhere that statewide officials draw the maps in Ohio, like Gov, SoS, Auditor, etc).

by OfficeOfLife 2007-01-14 01:12AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Analysis

I think a commission including the Gov, SoS and Auditor with some state legislator draws the lines for the districts of the state legislature, but the Legislature draws the lines for the congressional districts.

by micha1976 2007-01-14 02:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

Is Delaware right? It was that heavy Republican?

by yitbos96bb 2007-01-13 04:42AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

Remember that in Delaware they were voting for longtime favorite son and former governor Mike Castle, a "moderate" Republican of the Chris Shays mould (the kind that otherwise Democratic voters will pull the lever for because it makes them feel more independent-minded). I'm sure that there were a large number of Democratic crossovers to vote for Castle because of his supposed bipartisan allure and his generally unoffensive, non-confrontational demeanor. Remember, Delaware does have a Democratic governor and two Democratic US Senators (although, yes, I realize Montana does too ;-) ) and gave its three electoral votes to John Kerry in 2004.

by pennquaker08 2007-01-13 04:54AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

I went to school in Delaware and I wouldn't have voted for Castle, but I don't particularly begrudge Democrats that do vote for him. I think he's actually better than Shays and much better than Charlie Bass or that other guy (already fogot his name) in NH.

The only reason I say that, is because when Tom Delay and George Bush were at the peak of their power in 2003, Castle was actually fighting against the GOP and trying to keep them from going too far right. He didn't get far, but obviously he was vindicated. I've met him before, and he's a pretty decent fellow. Ideologically, you'd actually be splitting hairs between him and Tom Carper.

But anyway, he's getting up there in years (he's gotta be in mid- to late 60s by now) and I don't see Biden or Carper going anywhere soon (I think Schumer got Biden to commit to running again in 2008 even though he's running for prez.). So, Castle will probably retire in 5 or 10 years time and then Beau Biden or some other Democrat can take over the seat.

Not a big deal.

by adamterando 2007-01-13 05:01AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

'04 election results can be found on cnn, or on the House Clerk's web page.

by niq 2007-01-13 09:22AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

The CNN results probably aren't final.

I have them too: http://chris-bowers.mydd.com/story/2005/ 1/13/101435/418

My numbers differ slightly from the House Clerk's site for two reasons:

1.I have no idea. They show more voters than I do, I have no idea where they get that from.

2.In several states, minor party candidates are allowed to run the same candidates the major parties do. This is especially big in New York where the Liberal and Working Family Party often nominate Democrats. The House Clerk site counts votes received on those ballot lines for those small parties whereas I count them as either votes for the Democrats or Republicans.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 02:34PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

I thought NY was the only state which allowed fusion tickets. What other states do?

by DavidNYC 2007-01-13 04:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

Heh, the only one I can remember right now is New Jersey. I think there are others.

I'll check when I break down the 3rd party votes.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 08:24PM | 0 recs

4a2fab88-ed3b-47a4-8f14-3ec8a24504ac_normal

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

8% wow, that was an under-reported ass-kicking. Barone wrote:

"we are still in an era of roughly even division between the parties. In the five House elections from 1996 to 2004, both parties received between 46 percent and 51 percent of the popular vote; final 2006 results are not in, but if they're outside this narrow range, it won't be by much."

I suppose you could say that 53% isn't "much" above 51%, even though the difference is 8 percent; and further, the Republicans did not win by this great a margin anytime in the last six elections either.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-01-13 10:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

Not really. I agree more with Barone. You have to keep in mind that the Republicans ran 34 less candidates than the Democrats. This would not be captured in the generic polls.

I hope to do a revised hypothetical vote if both parties ran 435 candidates. It would likely lead to a vote of 52-46%, which still suggests a 50/50 nation.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 02:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

That seems a part of the party strength though-- fielding candidates.

And hasn't that been a part of why the Republicans have done better in recent years as an aggregate, and if you factored in an equal number of Dems in those election years of '94-'02 (assuming here that all the years had less Dems), would it also tighten those numbers further?

There's little getting around the fact that the Dems at least partially broke out of the 46-51 gridlock, not by a lot, granted, but I think if the Republicans had won by 8% we'd be hearing about realignment ad nauseum.

by Jerome Armstrong 2007-01-13 07:56PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

Yes, but I'd say there is a distinction between party strength/organization and party support.

When voters are asked in generic Congressional polls who they will vote for, I doubt that most of them know if they don't have a major party candidate on the ballot.

So, if we want to compare the election result to the generic polls, I think we have to readjust the results to a hypothetical situation if each party ran candidates in all 435 districts.

I think what it shows is, as in most things, there is no one right answer. It depends on what you want the results to explain.

In terms of the number of candidates, I would point out that the difference between the Democrats and the Republicans was unusually large. In 2004 I think the Republicans ran 5 more candidates than the Democrats and in 2002 they ran 8. 34 more Democrats than Republicans is much more than that.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 08:33PM | 0 recs

permalink

Are IOWA totals correct?

In light of our winning 2 new seats (making the delegation 4 Dems and 1 Rep), it seems hard to believe that we lost the state-wide total vote. Can someone check that?

by borlov 2007-01-13 10:51AM | 0 recs

permalink

It sounded weird to me too, but it makes sense

Latham and King both won by pretty wide margins in their districts.

Boswell faced a top-tier challenge, and the other two were very contested pickups.

Still seems weird though

by Terryus 2007-01-13 11:16AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It sounded weird to me too, but it makes sense

Iowa 1
D: 114,322
R: 89,729

2
D: 107,683
R: 101,707

3
D: 115,769
R: 103,722

4
D: 90,982
R: 121,650

5
D: 64,181
R: 105,580

Keep in mind,
1.Dumbya narrowly won Iowa in 2004, so the state is very competitive.
2.The second district is considered heavily Democatric, but it was held by Republican Jim Leach. He captured many votes for the Republican Party that would otherwise have gone Democratic.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 02:41PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It sounded weird to me too, but it makes sense

Thanks. The data helps clarify. Do you think IA is a pretty safe "return" to the Blue side in '08?

by borlov 2007-01-13 08:37PM | 0 recs

permalink

No, it's not safe

The GOP is going to try to focus its strategy on the tri-state area of MN, WI, and IA, so we'll have to fight to get it back.

by Terryus 2007-01-17 06:34AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: It sounded weird to me too, but it makes sense

it was definately King's district (IO-5) that put Republicans over the top. It's pretty Republican while the other districts are pretty competitive.

by micha1976 2007-01-14 02:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are IOWA totals correct?

IA-05 is strongly Republican, while IA-04 didn't face a big challenge and won handily. Probably the main reason was that our one incumbent, Leonard Boswell, won by a very pathetic margin, 52%, even though he's been an incumbent for quite some time. He needs to retire.

by KainIIIC 2007-01-13 11:17AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Are IOWA totals correct?

The delegation is now 3-2 Democratic, not 4-1. It was previously 4-1 Republican.

by bschak 2007-01-14 07:18AM | 0 recs

permalink

Actual versus predicted votes and seats

Couple of interesting things. First, the "generic ballot" survey item just before this past election was predicting a Democratic vote share of around 58%. Following his analysis at Political Arithmetik -- which showed that the generic ballot typically overestimates Democratic performance -- Charles Franklin predicted "the Dems should be expected to win about 53% of the national two party vote" and he appears to have been right.

Continuing, Franklin uncovered two trends in the relationship between national-level vote share and House seat share: from 1946 to 1992, a Democratic vote share of 53% would predict Democrats winning about 250 seats. But under Republican control from 1994 to 2004, 53% of the vote would predict Democrats winning only about 215 seats.

So what actually happened? Did something about US electoral geography really change in 1994, or did the 2006 election revert us back to the old pattern?

The answer is... it's hard to say. The actual House outcome was 233 Democratic seats, right in the middle between the two predictions.

If pressed, I would say that the 1994-2004 pattern was holding. Yes, this election would then represent a large positive residual in the Democrats' favor, but consider that 1) it was a 6-year midterm in which the non-presidential party is supposed to do well, and 2) there was unusually high popular discontent with the war in Iraq and other aspects of Republican leadership. As usual, I suppose we'll have to wait until 2008 for more evidence one way or the other.

by joxerdaly 2007-01-13 11:13AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Actual versus predicted votes and seats

Keep in mind, the Republicans ran 34 less candidates than the Democrats. (although that also caused 5 incumbent Democrats to not appear on the ballot).

If you readjust those to come up with a hypothetical ballot where both parties ran 435 candidates, the likely result would have been 52-46%.

The reason for the differences in the seats, other than gerrymandering which had a big impact in Michigan and a few other states, was the power of incumbancy.

Republican incumbents held something like 15 seats by under 5,000 votes.

If you reduced the Republican total vote by those 75,000 votes (15*5,000=75,000) and added them to the Democrats, it would barely change the total voting percentage for the 80 million votes, but it would cause a change of 15 seats.

So, 233+15 gives you right around the 250.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 02:48PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Actual versus predicted votes and seats

I follow your hypothetical but you have to think about the election as a macro process. There were a large number of close seats in 06, some of which the Dems won, others of which the Reps won. And this is just what we'd expect -- it would be really weird if all the close seats went one way or the other, just like you wouldn't expect to get 50 heads in a row by flipping coins.

To observe the patterns discussed by Franklin, you have to aggregate all the individual elections into one macro-level outcome. And once you do that, the result is just as I said it was.

It isn't logically "fair" to give all the close seats to the Dems. You just as well could give them to the Reps.

Better yet, simply take the actual outcome for what it was and see which theory of House election votes & seats is supported. It's certainly not entirely clear to me that the 1994-2004 pattern was broken in 2006.

by joxerdaly 2007-01-13 03:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Actual versus predicted votes and seats

I'll check it out, but I think most commentators noted that the Republicans won a lot more close seats than the Democrats. I don't have the tools to show it statistically, but my guess is that when I check it out, simple observation will show that the Republicans held on to more close districts than the Dems gained, with the likeliest reason for the hold being the advantage of incumbacny.

Obviously that advantage went to the Democrats prior to 1994. So, in trying to smooth out the advantage, I think it is fair to do as I did and just hypothetically switch the 15 closest seats.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 04:05PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Actual versus predicted votes and seats

You can just go here http://www.nytimes.com/ref/elections/200 6/House.html and click the "results analysis" tab, then at the lower left select the option to Show Only Districts That... Show the whole House.

There were many more close districts in 2006 than in 2004, but it's not clear that there are significantly more on the Rep side than on the Dem side.

by joxerdaly 2007-01-13 06:52PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Actual versus predicted votes and seats

Well, I was doing a thread on it

It isn't as big a difference as I thought. 31 Republicans won by under 10% as compared to 26 Democrats.

by Adam T 2007-01-13 08:29PM | 0 recs

permalink

What these results mean is...

we really need to undo the ancient gerrymandering in IL, MI, VA, OH, FL, and AZ. If we can undo gerrymandering in at least a few of those states (and maybe some retribution of our own), we can make significant gains.

by Terryus 2007-01-13 11:19AM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What these results mean is...

That'd be nice in 2011, but it won't happen mid-decade.

IL uses a commission process, under which the Democratic majority could not push through a new plan.

The MI State Senate is Republican and is not up for election until 2010.

Both houses of the VA General Assembly are Republican, and might conceivably (but not probably) turn Democratic in 2007. We would have to take 3 Senate seats out of 23 Republican-held and around 10 House seats out of around 57 Republican-held.

Both houses of the OH General Assembly are Republican. To take the Senate in 2008, we would have to win 4 out of 13 Republican-held even-numbered Senate seats. To take the House, we would have to win 4 out of 53.

The FL governor is Republican, and is not up for election until 2010. Also, both houses of the FL Legislature are Republican, and we would have to win 7 out of 12 Republican-held odd-numbered Senate seats to take the Senate in 2008.

Both houses of the AZ State Legislature are Republican. The Senate is not up for election until 2010. Also, AZ is well-known for using a commission to redistrict.

The PA State Senate is Republican (and the State House is only weakly Democratic). To take the Senate in 2008, we would have to win 4 out of 13 Republican-held odd-numbered Senate seats.

CO's Constitution says that the assembly should district "when a new apportionment shall be made by Congress."

The point of this is that it is absolutely impossible for us to redistrict IL, MI, FL, AZ, or CO in our favor before the next post-census cycle. We are also very unlikely to be in a position to redistrict in OH or PA before then, and unlikely to be in such a position in VA.

I suppose we might pick up a seat in NM, in LA (although it's hard to imagine Blanco backing such a thing when she's in the political fight of her life), or even in MD, but one has to ask whether one or two seats is worth losing the moral ability to decry Republican mid-decade redistricting. (My favorite solution is for Congress to ban mid-decade redistricting.)

by bschak 2007-01-13 12:40PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What these results mean is...

Since when does IL use a commission to redistrict?

They sure as hell didn't in 2001. If they do, it's a partisan redistricting committee.

The method for picking the Dems map for state legislative districts was particularly hilarious. They (Rs and Ds) could not agree on a plan, so the secretary of state drew a name out of a hat and picked the Democrats.

by adamterando 2007-01-13 02:49PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: What these results mean is...

Oops, I posted a comment below rather than replying here. See below. Summary: You're right that a commission didn't draw the current map, but redistricting still can't happen.

by bschak 2007-01-13 07:25PM | 0 recs

permalink

Re: Final U.S House electoral vote total

My bad. Illinois uses a commission for redistricting only if the Legislature fails to pass a proposal. The current congressional map was passed by the Legislature as a bipartisan compromise (Republican governor, split lege) intended to protect incumbents. Anyhow, Article IV §3 of the Illinois Constitution is pretty clear about the redistricting timeline. I look forward to picking up a few seats in 2011 (let's just hope that Blagojevich's administration doesn't go down in flames), but redistricting Illinois any time soon is a non-starter.

(By the way, the first time the Secretary of State drew a name out of a hat, back in 1970, he used one of Abe Lincoln's stovepipe hats. Dems won the hat draw in 1970, 1980, and 2000, but not in 1990.)

by bschak 2007-01-13 07:23PM | 0 recs