How will the US electoral map change in the Future

[AustralianSwingVoter]

How will the US electoral map change in the near Future

Could those participating firstly show the results of an election between 2024-2040 with both candidates tied in the popular vote (this is so changes can be shown without having to account the partisan shifts.) as they think it would look like with the shifts in states voting.
Then please make a map of the election at 270-to-Win and then screenshot it, and upload the photo so participants can visualise changes.

Voting trends, as tracked by 538 suggest that the South Eastern Seaboard will trend towards the Democrats, while the Mid-West will trend towards the Republicans (I dispute Ohio and Iowa moving steadily Democrat).
Along with NH, NV, NM and CO all trending strongly towards the Democrats the map is becoming steadily more difficult for the Republicans, with the only state which has crossed camps to the Republicans being WV while NV, NM, CO and NC all swapping over Democrats.
What this indicates is that what the Republicans need to do is either try and appeal to the Hispanic population (which would be difficult and probably wouldn't work anyway), or their only real hope would be a strong appeal to Non-College Educated Whites (Working Class, in all bar the name) which would hasten the Mid Wests migration, countering that of the South East, and also would make New England migrate towards them, as Non-College Educated Whites are the majority of voters in ME, NH, VT, RI and CT meanwhile MA, as shown on the map, is moving strongly towards the Republicans.

A possible map of the 2032 election

[johnloony]

Sometimes I imagine a USA in which the number of electoral college votes for each state stays the same, but the state boundaries are adjusted every 8 or 12 years by a Federal Boundary Commission in the style of how the UK Boundary Commissions do with constituencies.

[Richard Allen]

Oct 10, 2016 14:49:21 GMT johnloony said:

Sometimes I imagine a USA in which the number of electoral college votes for each state stays the same, but the state boundaries are adjusted every 8 or 12 years by a Federal Boundary Commission in the style of how the UK Boundary Commissions do with constituencies.

As barmy as that is it still makes far more sense than the palpably absurd map posted by the antipodean toddler who created this thread.

[mrhell]

It is an interesting conclusion that has Masschusetts going to the Republicans and South Carolina going to the Democrats.

[john07]

Oct 10, 2016 16:20:48 GMT mrhell said:

It is an interesting conclusion that has Masschusetts going to the Republicans and South Carolina going to the Democrats.

Apparently along with the rest of New England and the whole of the mid-west including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois!

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Oct 10, 2016 23:50:12 GMT john07 said:

Oct 10, 2016 16:20:48 GMT mrhell said:

It is an interesting conclusion that has Masschusetts going to the Republicans and South Carolina going to the Democrats.

Apparently along with the rest of New England and the whole of the mid-west including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois!

well, it is just my opinion, if you disagree I would like to see what you think it would look like
also this map is for the 2032 election, in 16 YEARS TIME

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Another interesting map I have made,
In the states in BLUE there is a higher proportion of Non-White voters than the national average (the national average number of non-white voters is 29.87%, so in the states coloured BLUE non-white voters make up more than 29.87% of the electorate)
THIS IS NOT AN ELECTION PREDICTION, THE STATES IN BLUE HAVE A HIGHER PROPORTION OF NON-WHITE VOTERS THAN THE NATIONAL AVERAGE

[Richard Allen]

Oct 11, 2016 1:47:42 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Oct 10, 2016 23:50:12 GMT john07 said:

Apparently along with the rest of New England and the whole of the mid-west including Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Illinois!

well, it is just my opinion, if you disagree I would like to see what you think it would look like
also this map is for the 2032 election, in 16 YEARS TIME

I doubt anybody is going to go into major detail to explain just how badly you are going wrong. Your suggested maps for 16 years time are complete and utter nonsense based on simplistic and flawed assumptions. You clearly haven't got a clue what are you are talking about and I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you. Now kindly stop wasting our time posting your stupid bullshit.

[The Bishop]

The point is, even "well informed" forecasts of this kind generally get it wrong. The future that far ahead is simply unknowable in any kind of detail.

[Deleted]

While this is a very interesting question, it's almost impossible to give a specific answer due to the number of variables and the lengthy time period.

The idea of using a tied electoral college as a neutral starting point isn't realistic. The fact is that that the notional electoral college isn't balanced at the moment, not because the popularity of the parties is unusually tilted, but because the Democrats have a voter coalition that easily gives them many of the bigger states, and often by quite substantial margins. It would be more realistic to start from a current map, or from a synthesis of the last two or three elections.

By 2032 there will have been two more reapportionments of congressional seats and hence EC votes. This isn't going to affect the tilt of individual states, but it will affect the EC balance. The reapportionment will be based on demographic shifts, which _will_ affect the tilt of individual states.

Particularly in 2020, another critical factor about the reapportionment is going to be who is in control of the state legislatures that draw up the boundaries. The last cycle was generally controlled by Republicans, who have given themselves a built in edge in many states - I can't recall the number, but it's in double figures. The Democrats seem to have woken up to this, plus 2020 will be a presidential year which will help them - so it might be that the House becomes much more balanced post-2020 which will have an effect on how effective government is, and hence how voters view whichever party is in government. The other beneficial effect of being able to favour one's own party in state boundaries is that it gives more opportunities to develop a bench of potential candidates for state-wide office - the Dems are particularly short in many of the mid-West and internal far West seats, while the Reps are very short in New England.

The major factor, IMHO, is where does the Republican Party go from here? Their focus on a base of white voters, and generally less educated ones, has already been flagged up as taking them up a blind alley. Some in the party recognised this post-2012, hence the report that recommended a more positive approach to immigration, etc. But this hasn't happened yet. They have a chance to change direction after this November, but will they take it? Strategists will say yes, but many of their leaders are as bad as the extreme voters, and are unlikely to agree. Even if they do change direction, it will take time to effect that, and in the meantime they will probably have permanently damaged the party in the minds of a generation of voters.

So, two scenarios: a) they carry on as now, b) they change to become less focused on migration, guns, and sex, and more focused on small government and promoting business.
Scenario a): they lose ground in the states where minorities are increasing: Florida, Arizona, Texas (all Latinos), Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi (African-Americans) and where the electorate is becoming more educated (North Carolina, Colorado, etc.)
Scenario b) They start to pick up ground in some of the purple states like NC and VA, and over time they should actually become more competitive in states like CA.

I was going to conclude by saying the heck with it and drawing a map, but to be honest it would be more wishful thinking than objective prediction - I'd probably just take all the most Dem-favourable options and go with that. So I'll leave it here.

By the way, can anyone explain the title on the 538 map in the original post? I've read it a dozen times and am still not quite sure what it means...

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Oct 11, 2016 9:00:58 GMT Richard Allen said:

Oct 11, 2016 1:47:42 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

well, it is just my opinion, if you disagree I would like to see what you think it would look like
also this map is for the 2032 election, in 16 YEARS TIME

I doubt anybody is going to go into major detail to explain just how badly you are going wrong. Your suggested maps for 16 years time are complete and utter nonsense based on simplistic and flawed assumptions. You clearly haven't got a clue what are you are talking about and I have neither the time nor the inclination to educate you. Now kindly stop wasting our time posting your stupid bullshit.

I do, on reflection, believe that some of the assumptions I made, particularily in regard to New England were complete and utter BS, therefore, here is a more realistic version

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Oct 11, 2016 9:41:03 GMT jamesdoyle said:

So, two scenarios: a) they carry on as now, b) they change to become less focused on migration, guns, and sex, and more focused on small government and promoting business.
Scenario a): they lose ground in the states where minorities are increasing: Florida, Arizona, Texas (all Latinos), Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi (African-Americans) and where the electorate is becoming more educated (North Carolina, Colorado, etc.)
Scenario b) They start to pick up ground in some of the purple states like NC and VA, and over time they should actually become more competitive in states like CA.

Thank you jamesdoyle, this was the sort of conversation I hoped to start, in my opinion the best path forward for the Republicans, as outlined in my opening post, is to appeal to Non-College Educated (basically Working Class) Whites, which well help overcome the demographic shifts in the south as the Latino & Black population both increase and become stronger for the Democrats, by swinging the Mid West and New England towards them

[mrhell]

Oct 11, 2016 10:33:25 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Oct 11, 2016 9:41:03 GMT jamesdoyle said:

So, two scenarios: a) they carry on as now, b) they change to become less focused on migration, guns, and sex, and more focused on small government and promoting business.
Scenario a): they lose ground in the states where minorities are increasing: Florida, Arizona, Texas (all Latinos), Georgia, South Carolina, Mississippi (African-Americans) and where the electorate is becoming more educated (North Carolina, Colorado, etc.)
Scenario b) They start to pick up ground in some of the purple states like NC and VA, and over time they should actually become more competitive in states like CA.

Thank you jamesdoyle, this was the sort of conversation I hoped to start, in my opinion the best path forward for the Republicans, as outlined in my opening post, is to appeal to Non-College Educated (basically Working Class) Whites, which well help overcome the demographic shifts in the south as the Latino & Black population both increase and become stronger for the Democrats, by swinging the Mid West and New England towards them

If you sort by this link by % with a bachelor's degree you'll see how that strategy won't work in New England. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Oct 11, 2016 11:07:16 GMT mrhell said:

Oct 11, 2016 10:33:25 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Thank you jamesdoyle, this was the sort of conversation I hoped to start, in my opinion the best path forward for the Republicans, as outlined in my opening post, is to appeal to Non-College Educated (basically Working Class) Whites, which well help overcome the demographic shifts in the south as the Latino & Black population both increase and become stronger for the Democrats, by swinging the Mid West and New England towards them

If you sort by this link by % with a bachelor's degree you'll see how that strategy won't work in New England. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

No, it will only work in ME and NH, and MA swift advancement to the Reps will get a third state

[john07]

Oct 11, 2016 11:13:28 GMT AustralianSwingVoter said:

Oct 11, 2016 11:07:16 GMT mrhell said:

If you sort by this link by % with a bachelor's degree you'll see how that strategy won't work in New England. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_educational_attainment

No, it will only work in ME and NH, and MA swift advancement to the Reps will get a third state

I am sorry to report that, as per ever, you are talking total bollocks.

[Georg Ebner]

Didn't deGaulle say something like: "The future is known only by those, who know the past!"?:

[Georg Ebner]

After the LiberalDemocracy of the XIXth century and the SocialDemocracy of the XXth century we will certainly have a "BioDemocracy" in the XXIth century, based on genetics.
Eventually this could result in this way:

[BossMan]

Oct 11, 2016 13:07:50 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Didn't deGaulle say something like: "The future is known only by those, who know the past!"?:

That's excellent. I notice the Democrats are red and the Republicans blue there which is what they ought to be, but are not.

[john07]

Oct 11, 2016 16:43:50 GMT BossMan said:

Oct 11, 2016 13:07:50 GMT Georg Ebner said:

Didn't deGaulle say something like: "The future is known only by those, who know the past!"?:

That's excellent. I notice the Democrats are red and the Republicans blue there which is what they ought to be, but are not.

It must be from Atlas!

[Sibboleth]

American electoral geography changes far more than that of the UK or Australia. A lot of 'partisan' alignments are based on personality politics. There's no point in predicting the map in four years time let alone...