If Congress had one Representative for 10,000,000 constituents, there would be only 33 members of Congress.
Now the question is, would Democrats have a majority? WA, AK, and HI combined have just about the right population, and that would be a Dem seat. Dems would have 4 seats from California. The CO/NM seat would probably be swingy, depe…
If Congress had one Representative for 10,000,000 constituents, there would be only 33 members of Congress.
Now the question is, would Democrats have a majority? WA, AK, and HI combined have just about the right population, and that would be a Dem seat. Dems would have 4 seats from California. The CO/NM seat would probably be swingy, depending on what else is in it. Chicago would have a deep blue seat. MI, GA, and NC would each be a swing seat. MA/VT/NH/ME would be a Dem seat, NYC would have two Dem seats, Philly would have a Dem seat, and Baltimore/DC as well. Maybe a couple of swingy seats elsewhere, like MN/WI (or South Florida, if Dems ever recover there)?
I'll have to do a more thorough analysis if I ever have time.
MN-WI would be cute but is almost 12m people. Makes sense to cut off agricultural Western/Southern MN and give it to the Dakotas/Great Plains district, which would equal out MN/WI to a Lean D seat that probably has the most shoreline of any district.
From googling, looks like AK beats MN for total shoreline when it comes lakes and oceans, but if you throw in rivers, then MN is the top state. I’m not a whatever profession who determines that but shoreline to me says we next to water and enjoying the benefits. If I wasn’t so sore from doing yard work, I would have went for a walk downtown Mpls which is built around the Mississippi’s only waterfall. It’s nothing grand and not natural anymore but it is like damn, that hydropower did all this.
I didn't think of that! You're right, keeping Wisconsin whole and adding in the Twin Cities metro area makes more sense than trying to keep Minnesota whole, which creates a very awkward split of Wisconsin.
If Congress had one Representative for 10,000,000 constituents, there would be only 33 members of Congress.
Now the question is, would Democrats have a majority? WA, AK, and HI combined have just about the right population, and that would be a Dem seat. Dems would have 4 seats from California. The CO/NM seat would probably be swingy, depending on what else is in it. Chicago would have a deep blue seat. MI, GA, and NC would each be a swing seat. MA/VT/NH/ME would be a Dem seat, NYC would have two Dem seats, Philly would have a Dem seat, and Baltimore/DC as well. Maybe a couple of swingy seats elsewhere, like MN/WI (or South Florida, if Dems ever recover there)?
I'll have to do a more thorough analysis if I ever have time.
MN-WI would be cute but is almost 12m people. Makes sense to cut off agricultural Western/Southern MN and give it to the Dakotas/Great Plains district, which would equal out MN/WI to a Lean D seat that probably has the most shoreline of any district.
From googling, looks like AK beats MN for total shoreline when it comes lakes and oceans, but if you throw in rivers, then MN is the top state. I’m not a whatever profession who determines that but shoreline to me says we next to water and enjoying the benefits. If I wasn’t so sore from doing yard work, I would have went for a walk downtown Mpls which is built around the Mississippi’s only waterfall. It’s nothing grand and not natural anymore but it is like damn, that hydropower did all this.
I didn't think of that! You're right, keeping Wisconsin whole and adding in the Twin Cities metro area makes more sense than trying to keep Minnesota whole, which creates a very awkward split of Wisconsin.