Gerrymandering arms race
-
If that's what the state wants to do, and they have the votes to do it, why shouldn't they be able to call a special session?
California, New York, and Illinois can do the same. Their current maps look like they're gerrymandered worse than Texas. So, if their current policies have caused years of population loss for those states, what is going to happen to their moderates and conservatives when their state's policies become even bluer? If blue states participate in this arms race, it will come back to bite them in the ass when the 2030 census rolls around and they lose more congressional seats and electoral votes to the Midwest and Southeast. I hope they do it. It will be better for us in Ohio.
I'm against the idea of every state going full gerrymandering arms race. But if Texas starts it, I can see why blue states feel the need to follow suit.
Again, I'd prefer everything be drawn by independent groups and not be touched for extended periods of time.
Otherwise we're diving further into our modern political era of doing everything you can to bend rules and grab at power (yes, yes, "that's always existed", I gotcha... we're still reaching new levels).
And the shifts of population from blue states to red states is over blown, based on the numbers, but that's a different topic.
***ignorant crap***
Just once, learn what the hell you are squawking about?
United States Representatives from California
The following is an alphabetical list of United States Representatives from California. For chronological tables of members of the United States House of Representatives from California, see each congressional district's article. California's current U.S. House delegation consists of 43 Democrats and 9 Republicans. 1st district:California - 43 democrats to the House, only 9 republicans.
but Trump won 40% of the vote. So, roughly, that should have been about 17 republicans.
California unfairly gerrymandered to screw over the republicans and give themselves the advantage.
"oh, I guess California started the redistricting war" eh?
-
Is anyone here onboard with this?
If Texas pushes through redistricting (Gerrymandering) years earlier than they're supposed to it will lead to an arms race of redistricting around the country. Or at least it should, as it seems Dems will finally fight fire with fire.
Unless one of you MAGA boys wants to defend what Texas is doing but then tell me California doing the exact same thing is wrong. Normally your hypocrisy is at least across two sentences...
Is anyone here onboard with this?
If Texas pushes through redistricting (Gerrymandering) years earlier than they're supposed to it will lead to an arms race of redistricting around the country. Or at least it should, as it seems Dems will finally fight fire with fire.
Unless one of you MAGA boys wants to defend what Texas is doing but then tell me California doing the exact same thing is wrong. Normally your hypocrisy is at least across two sentences...
LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it. Plus, you people are done. You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.
If everybody had like minds, we would never learn. -
And the shifts of population from blue states to red states is over blown, based on the numbers, but that's a different topic.
Look at how much outrage has been generated by a potential change of 5 seats in Texas. The populous blue states will lose seats/electoral votes due to emigration to red states AND because illegals will no longer count toward the census. I figure this causes them to lose between 5-15 seats/votes for 2032. +10 to the House for the GOP would be a big deal in 2032.
Look at how much outrage has been generated by a potential change of 5 seats in Texas. The populous blue states will lose seats/electoral votes due to emigration to red states AND because illegals will no longer count toward the census. I figure this causes them to lose between 5-15 seats/votes for 2032. +10 to the House for the GOP would be a big deal in 2032.
Outrage at the of cycle redistricting at the direction of a president specifically looking to create more seats for his party.
Well, it is good that you figure that. We'll see what happens
-
Is anyone here onboard with this?
If Texas pushes through redistricting (Gerrymandering) years earlier than they're supposed to it will lead to an arms race of redistricting around the country. Or at least it should, as it seems Dems will finally fight fire with fire.
Unless one of you MAGA boys wants to defend what Texas is doing but then tell me California doing the exact same thing is wrong. Normally your hypocrisy is at least across two sentences...
LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it. Plus, you people are done. You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.
LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it. Plus, you people are done. You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.
Who exactly are my people?
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it. Plus, you people are done. You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.
Who exactly are my people?
Who exactly are my people?
Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.
-
-
and....the truth is, it is typical corruption of leftwinger's existence - everything that politically benefits them is great, but it it isn't advantageous to them, it's terrible, illegal, a "threat to democracy" etc.
Dems wanted to draw every Republican out of Maryland but now lambast Texas redistricting
The 'Patapsco Pterodactyl' formed as part of a Democratic push to oust Republicans through redistricting
-
LOl...the dems have gerrymandered for decades and have run out of ways to do it. Plus, you people are done. You aren't winning anything for the next 20 years. You have moved from the party for the lower income people to the party representing the folks with nose rings.
Who exactly are my people?
Who exactly are my people?
-
Who exactly are my people?
Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.
Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.
Ohh, gotcha
And pedos are your people
I remember now
-
Who exactly are my people?
LOL, OMG. Nailed it !
-
Illegals - you've made that clear - "they are just here to have a better life". Gays and trans. socialists - like mamdani. any leftwing radical...Everyone else, it seems you ridicule to cover up for your extreme lack of ability to intelligently converse on any subject. Your pecking is just destructive to every discussion.
Ohh, gotcha
And pedos are your people
I remember now
*FART*
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
-
*FART*
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
Imagine that.. The one who supports Pedo's right calling everyone else a Pedo... He's a fucking mental nut job...
-
If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!
It's about time!
Our musical works to date http://www.arielsatticmusic.com/ -
*FART*
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims
Because pedo sex traffickers are your people
Sick
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody! -
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims
Because pedo sex traffickers are your people
Sick
Puke Peck Fart
I’m just filling in. Calf is obviously busy.
I’ll add nothing more in the spirit of filling in.
-
you have justified illegal criminals time and time again - "they are just here to have a better life.You keep ignoring and making light of the many violent crimes by so many illegals, and you've ignored the sex trafficking the entire time.
You won't even say Laken Riley's name.
The rest of us want those illegals in prison in some other country. gone. So, your immature attempt at a bounceback is just stupid. You wouldn't be considered a belligerent/ignorant asswhole if you would just stop acting like one.
I don't think you've said the name of any of Epstein's victims
Because pedo sex traffickers are your people
Sick
***FART***
again, no one knows their names, birdgirl. You really are a detriment to every discussion on this forum. I gave you Laken Riley's name a long time ago, and you still won't say her name.
-
Meanwhile -
Oh, That’s Why Democrats Don’t Want a New Census
"
I have instructed our Department of Commerce to immediately begin work on a new and highly accurate CENSUS based on modern day facts and figures and, importantly, using the results and information gained from the Presidential Election of 2024. People who are in our Country illegally WILL NOT BE COUNTED IN THE CENSUS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!" Trump posted on Truth Social Thursday.
AdvertisementThe directive sent Democrats into a meltdown and thanks to White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, we know why.
Without illegal aliens counted in the U.S. Census, which determines congressional representation in Washington D.C., Democrats would be in the minority.
"They stole 20 or 30 House seats by counting illegal aliens in the census, and now you have Democrats talking about, 'Oh, Republicans can't change their congressional maps!' You have literally brought invaders into this country by the tens of millions to RIG the results of the census, and the apportionment of congressional seats!" Miller says. "And then on top of that, of course, you have a situation where even though Republicans won a landslide in the House popular vote, Democrats have so thoroughly rigged and gerrymandered and manipulated their districts beyond all recognition that Republicans only gained a 4-seat majority, despite winning a much smaller majority in the popular vote in 2010 and getting 63 seats.""
-
If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!
It's about time!
If it gets rid of that nasty @#nt Crockett, yer damn right I'm on board with it!!
It's about time!
-
Messed around with AI to get some actual data.
The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. The further from zero, the worse your state is. Negative numbers indicate Democrat favor and positive numbers indicate Republican favor. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops.
Of the states that have 10 or more house reps
- Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
- Illinois has the biggest difference
As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.
2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)
State
Population (2023 Est.)
Total House Seats
Democratic House Reps
Democratic % of State Seats
Republican House Reps
Republican % of State Seats
Democratic Vote % (Harris)
Republican Vote % (Trump)
Republican House % - Trump Vote %
California
38,965,193
52
40
76.92%
12
23.08%
58.47%
38.33%
-15.25%
Texas
30,503,301
38
13
34.21%
25
65.79%
42.46%
56.14%
9.65%
Florida
22,610,726
28
8
28.57%
20
71.43%
42.99%
56.09%
15.34%
New York
19,571,216
26
16
61.54%
10
38.46%
55.91%
43.31%
-4.85%
Pennsylvania
12,961,683
17
9
52.94%
8
47.06%
48.66%
50.37%
-3.31%
Illinois
12,549,689
17
14
82.35%
3
17.65%
54.37%
43.47%
-25.82%
Ohio
11,785,935
15
5
33.33%
10
66.67%
43.93%
55.14%
11.53%
Georgia
11,029,227
14
5
35.71%
9
64.29%
48.53%
50.73%
13.56%
North Carolina
10,835,491
14
7
50.00%
7
50.00%
47.65%
50.86%
-0.86%
Michigan
10,030,722
13
6
46.15%
7
53.85%
48.31%
49.73%
4.12%
New Jersey
9,290,841
12
9
75.00%
3
25.00%
51.97%
46.06%
-21.06%
Virginia
8,715,698
11
6
54.55%
5
45.45%
51.83%
46.05%
-0.60%
Washington
7,812,880
10
8
80.00%
2
20.00%
57.23%
39.01%
-19.01%
Arizona
7,431,344
9
3
33.33%
6
66.67%
46.69%
52.22%
14.45%
Tennessee
7,126,489
9
1
11.11%
8
88.89%
34.47%
64.19%
24.70%
Massachusetts
7,001,399
9
9
100.00%
0
0.00%
61.22%
36.02%
-36.02%
Indiana
6,862,199
9
2
22.22%
7
77.78%
39.62%
58.58%
19.20%
Missouri
6,196,156
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
40.08%
58.49%
16.51%
Maryland
6,180,253
8
7
87.50%
1
12.50%
62.62%
34.08%
-21.58%
Wisconsin
5,910,955
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
48.84%
49.70%
25.30%
Colorado
5,877,610
8
5
62.50%
3
37.50%
54.13%
43.14%
-5.64%
Minnesota
5,737,915
8
4
50.00%
4
50.00%
50.92%
46.68%
3.32%
South Carolina
5,373,555
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
40.36%
58.23%
27.48%
Alabama
5,108,468
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
34.10%
64.57%
21.14%
Louisiana
4,573,749
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
38.21%
60.22%
23.11%
Kentucky
4,526,332
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
33.94%
64.47%
18.86%
Oregon
4,233,358
6
4
66.67%
2
33.33%
55.27%
40.97%
-7.64%
Oklahoma
4,053,824
5
0
0.00%
5
100.00%
31.90%
66.16%
33.84%
Connecticut
3,617,176
5
5
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.40%
41.89%
-41.89%
Utah
3,417,734
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
37.79%
59.38%
40.62%
Iowa
3,207,004
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
42.52%
55.73%
44.27%
Nevada
3,194,176
4
3
75.00%
1
25.00%
47.49%
50.59%
-25.59%
Arkansas
3,067,732
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
33.56%
64.20%
35.80%
Mississippi
2,939,690
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
38.00%
60.89%
14.11%
Kansas
2,944,376
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
41.04%
57.16%
17.84%
New Mexico
2,114,371
3
3
100.00%
0
0.00%
51.85%
45.85%
-45.85%
Nebraska
1,978,379
3
0
0.00%
3
100.00%
39.06%
59.63%
40.37%
Idaho
1,964,374
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
30.39%
66.89%
33.11%
West Virginia
1,770,071
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
28.11%
69.98%
30.02%
Hawaii
1,435,138
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
60.59%
37.48%
-37.48%
New Hampshire
1,402,054
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
50.65%
47.87%
-47.87%
Maine
1,395,722
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
52.44%
45.50%
-45.50%
Montana
1,132,366
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
38.46%
58.39%
41.61%
Rhode Island
1,095,962
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
55.54%
41.76%
-41.76%
Delaware
1,030,132
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.63%
41.89%
-41.89%
South Dakota
919,318
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
34.24%
63.43%
36.57%
North Dakota
783,926
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
30.51%
66.96%
33.04%
Vermont
647,464
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
63.83%
32.32%
-32.32%
Wyoming
586,485
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
25.84%
71.60%
28.40%
Total
331,589,273
435
215
49.43%
220
50.57%
48.3%
49.8%
0.77%
-
Messed around with AI to get some actual data.
The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. The further from zero, the worse your state is. Negative numbers indicate Democrat favor and positive numbers indicate Republican favor. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops.
Of the states that have 10 or more house reps
- Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
- Illinois has the biggest difference
As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.
2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)
State
Population (2023 Est.)
Total House Seats
Democratic House Reps
Democratic % of State Seats
Republican House Reps
Republican % of State Seats
Democratic Vote % (Harris)
Republican Vote % (Trump)
Republican House % - Trump Vote %
California
38,965,193
52
40
76.92%
12
23.08%
58.47%
38.33%
-15.25%
Texas
30,503,301
38
13
34.21%
25
65.79%
42.46%
56.14%
9.65%
Florida
22,610,726
28
8
28.57%
20
71.43%
42.99%
56.09%
15.34%
New York
19,571,216
26
16
61.54%
10
38.46%
55.91%
43.31%
-4.85%
Pennsylvania
12,961,683
17
9
52.94%
8
47.06%
48.66%
50.37%
-3.31%
Illinois
12,549,689
17
14
82.35%
3
17.65%
54.37%
43.47%
-25.82%
Ohio
11,785,935
15
5
33.33%
10
66.67%
43.93%
55.14%
11.53%
Georgia
11,029,227
14
5
35.71%
9
64.29%
48.53%
50.73%
13.56%
North Carolina
10,835,491
14
7
50.00%
7
50.00%
47.65%
50.86%
-0.86%
Michigan
10,030,722
13
6
46.15%
7
53.85%
48.31%
49.73%
4.12%
New Jersey
9,290,841
12
9
75.00%
3
25.00%
51.97%
46.06%
-21.06%
Virginia
8,715,698
11
6
54.55%
5
45.45%
51.83%
46.05%
-0.60%
Washington
7,812,880
10
8
80.00%
2
20.00%
57.23%
39.01%
-19.01%
Arizona
7,431,344
9
3
33.33%
6
66.67%
46.69%
52.22%
14.45%
Tennessee
7,126,489
9
1
11.11%
8
88.89%
34.47%
64.19%
24.70%
Massachusetts
7,001,399
9
9
100.00%
0
0.00%
61.22%
36.02%
-36.02%
Indiana
6,862,199
9
2
22.22%
7
77.78%
39.62%
58.58%
19.20%
Missouri
6,196,156
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
40.08%
58.49%
16.51%
Maryland
6,180,253
8
7
87.50%
1
12.50%
62.62%
34.08%
-21.58%
Wisconsin
5,910,955
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
48.84%
49.70%
25.30%
Colorado
5,877,610
8
5
62.50%
3
37.50%
54.13%
43.14%
-5.64%
Minnesota
5,737,915
8
4
50.00%
4
50.00%
50.92%
46.68%
3.32%
South Carolina
5,373,555
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
40.36%
58.23%
27.48%
Alabama
5,108,468
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
34.10%
64.57%
21.14%
Louisiana
4,573,749
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
38.21%
60.22%
23.11%
Kentucky
4,526,332
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
33.94%
64.47%
18.86%
Oregon
4,233,358
6
4
66.67%
2
33.33%
55.27%
40.97%
-7.64%
Oklahoma
4,053,824
5
0
0.00%
5
100.00%
31.90%
66.16%
33.84%
Connecticut
3,617,176
5
5
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.40%
41.89%
-41.89%
Utah
3,417,734
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
37.79%
59.38%
40.62%
Iowa
3,207,004
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
42.52%
55.73%
44.27%
Nevada
3,194,176
4
3
75.00%
1
25.00%
47.49%
50.59%
-25.59%
Arkansas
3,067,732
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
33.56%
64.20%
35.80%
Mississippi
2,939,690
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
38.00%
60.89%
14.11%
Kansas
2,944,376
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
41.04%
57.16%
17.84%
New Mexico
2,114,371
3
3
100.00%
0
0.00%
51.85%
45.85%
-45.85%
Nebraska
1,978,379
3
0
0.00%
3
100.00%
39.06%
59.63%
40.37%
Idaho
1,964,374
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
30.39%
66.89%
33.11%
West Virginia
1,770,071
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
28.11%
69.98%
30.02%
Hawaii
1,435,138
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
60.59%
37.48%
-37.48%
New Hampshire
1,402,054
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
50.65%
47.87%
-47.87%
Maine
1,395,722
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
52.44%
45.50%
-45.50%
Montana
1,132,366
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
38.46%
58.39%
41.61%
Rhode Island
1,095,962
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
55.54%
41.76%
-41.76%
Delaware
1,030,132
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.63%
41.89%
-41.89%
South Dakota
919,318
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
34.24%
63.43%
36.57%
North Dakota
783,926
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
30.51%
66.96%
33.04%
Vermont
647,464
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
63.83%
32.32%
-32.32%
Wyoming
586,485
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
25.84%
71.60%
28.40%
Total
331,589,273
435
215
49.43%
220
50.57%
48.3%
49.8%
0.77%
Messed around with AI to get some actual data.
The important data is the last column, which shows the difference in % of republican held seats from the % of popular vote for that state. This number essentially shows you how badly each state is gerrymandered. I've sorted the whole chart by most populous state. As you go lower in the chart, the data in the last column becomes less useful because the total number of house reps per state drops.
Of the states that have 10 or more house reps
- Virginia shows almost no difference between popular vote and house rep breakdown
- Illinois has the biggest difference
As a whole, the country sucks at minimizing the effect of gerrymandering.
2024 U.S. House Election Results and Presidential Popular Vote by State (Sorted by Population)
State
Population (2023 Est.)
Total House Seats
Democratic House Reps
Democratic % of State Seats
Republican House Reps
Republican % of State Seats
Democratic Vote % (Harris)
Republican Vote % (Trump)
Republican House % - Trump Vote %
California
38,965,193
52
40
76.92%
12
23.08%
58.47%
38.33%
-15.25%
Texas
30,503,301
38
13
34.21%
25
65.79%
42.46%
56.14%
9.65%
Florida
22,610,726
28
8
28.57%
20
71.43%
42.99%
56.09%
15.34%
New York
19,571,216
26
16
61.54%
10
38.46%
55.91%
43.31%
-4.85%
Pennsylvania
12,961,683
17
9
52.94%
8
47.06%
48.66%
50.37%
-3.31%
Illinois
12,549,689
17
14
82.35%
3
17.65%
54.37%
43.47%
-25.82%
Ohio
11,785,935
15
5
33.33%
10
66.67%
43.93%
55.14%
11.53%
Georgia
11,029,227
14
5
35.71%
9
64.29%
48.53%
50.73%
13.56%
North Carolina
10,835,491
14
7
50.00%
7
50.00%
47.65%
50.86%
-0.86%
Michigan
10,030,722
13
6
46.15%
7
53.85%
48.31%
49.73%
4.12%
New Jersey
9,290,841
12
9
75.00%
3
25.00%
51.97%
46.06%
-21.06%
Virginia
8,715,698
11
6
54.55%
5
45.45%
51.83%
46.05%
-0.60%
Washington
7,812,880
10
8
80.00%
2
20.00%
57.23%
39.01%
-19.01%
Arizona
7,431,344
9
3
33.33%
6
66.67%
46.69%
52.22%
14.45%
Tennessee
7,126,489
9
1
11.11%
8
88.89%
34.47%
64.19%
24.70%
Massachusetts
7,001,399
9
9
100.00%
0
0.00%
61.22%
36.02%
-36.02%
Indiana
6,862,199
9
2
22.22%
7
77.78%
39.62%
58.58%
19.20%
Missouri
6,196,156
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
40.08%
58.49%
16.51%
Maryland
6,180,253
8
7
87.50%
1
12.50%
62.62%
34.08%
-21.58%
Wisconsin
5,910,955
8
2
25.00%
6
75.00%
48.84%
49.70%
25.30%
Colorado
5,877,610
8
5
62.50%
3
37.50%
54.13%
43.14%
-5.64%
Minnesota
5,737,915
8
4
50.00%
4
50.00%
50.92%
46.68%
3.32%
South Carolina
5,373,555
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
40.36%
58.23%
27.48%
Alabama
5,108,468
7
1
14.29%
6
85.71%
34.10%
64.57%
21.14%
Louisiana
4,573,749
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
38.21%
60.22%
23.11%
Kentucky
4,526,332
6
1
16.67%
5
83.33%
33.94%
64.47%
18.86%
Oregon
4,233,358
6
4
66.67%
2
33.33%
55.27%
40.97%
-7.64%
Oklahoma
4,053,824
5
0
0.00%
5
100.00%
31.90%
66.16%
33.84%
Connecticut
3,617,176
5
5
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.40%
41.89%
-41.89%
Utah
3,417,734
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
37.79%
59.38%
40.62%
Iowa
3,207,004
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
42.52%
55.73%
44.27%
Nevada
3,194,176
4
3
75.00%
1
25.00%
47.49%
50.59%
-25.59%
Arkansas
3,067,732
4
0
0.00%
4
100.00%
33.56%
64.20%
35.80%
Mississippi
2,939,690
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
38.00%
60.89%
14.11%
Kansas
2,944,376
4
1
25.00%
3
75.00%
41.04%
57.16%
17.84%
New Mexico
2,114,371
3
3
100.00%
0
0.00%
51.85%
45.85%
-45.85%
Nebraska
1,978,379
3
0
0.00%
3
100.00%
39.06%
59.63%
40.37%
Idaho
1,964,374
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
30.39%
66.89%
33.11%
West Virginia
1,770,071
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
28.11%
69.98%
30.02%
Hawaii
1,435,138
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
60.59%
37.48%
-37.48%
New Hampshire
1,402,054
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
50.65%
47.87%
-47.87%
Maine
1,395,722
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
52.44%
45.50%
-45.50%
Montana
1,132,366
2
0
0.00%
2
100.00%
38.46%
58.39%
41.61%
Rhode Island
1,095,962
2
2
100.00%
0
0.00%
55.54%
41.76%
-41.76%
Delaware
1,030,132
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
56.63%
41.89%
-41.89%
South Dakota
919,318
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
34.24%
63.43%
36.57%
North Dakota
783,926
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
30.51%
66.96%
33.04%
Vermont
647,464
1
1
100.00%
0
0.00%
63.83%
32.32%
-32.32%
Wyoming
586,485
1
0
0.00%
1
100.00%
25.84%
71.60%
28.40%
Total
331,589,273
435
215
49.43%
220
50.57%
48.3%
49.8%
0.77%
I'd think you'd have to take into account the likelihood of a registered Dem vs a registered Rep to vote.
It's also only based on actual party registration, not political leanings. Obviously the data can't be perfect though. --- read it wrong, that's not how the data is set up
You could try comparing it to how the state voted in the presidential election. --- nevermind, I see that's how it was setup now. Unfortunately that would add the voter turnout element.
Or how they voted for senators. But that's not perfect either.
Interesting though. But I am still hesitant to just use AI gathered data
Ja.brill Peppers - Cleveland Brown OldBrownsFan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 5:09PM said: "No you are not the work of the devil but you are deceived by the devil." Who's got it better than us? Nooooobody!
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login