Future electoral votes?

[Bogart]

Based upon Census estimates for 2010, this is how many reps each state would have after reapportionment. Add 2 to each for the EV. These are based upon the formula actually used for reapportionment.

AK   1
AL   7
AZ   8
AR   4
CA   58
CO   7
CT   5
DE   1
DC   0
FL   26
GA   13
HI   2
ID   2
IL   18
IN   9
IA   4
KS   4
KY   6
LA   7
ME   2
MD   8
MA   9
MI   14
MN   7
MS   4
MO   9
MT   2
NE   3
NV   3
NH   2
NJ   13
NM   3
NY   27
NC   13
ND   1
OH   16
OK   5
OR   6
PA   18
RI   2
SC   6
SD   1
TN   9
TX   34
UT   4
VT   1
VA   11
WA   10
WV   3
WI   8
WY   1
TTL   435

[Bogart]

Here is the 2020 House:

AK-1  AL- 7  AZ-8  AR- 4  CA- 64  CO- 6  CT- 5  DE- 1  FL- 26  GA- 13  HI- 2  ID- 2  IL- 18  IN- 9  IA- 4  KS- 4  KY-6  LA- 7  ME- 2  MD- 8  MA- 8  MI- 14  MN- 7  MS- 4  MO- 8  MT-2
NE- 3  NV- 3  NH- 2  NJ- 12  NM- 3  NY- 25  NC- 12  ND- 1 
OH- 16  OK- 5  OR- 6  PA- 17  RI- 2  SC- 6  SD- 1  TN- 9 
TX- 34  UT- 4  VT- 1  VA- 11  WA- 11 WV- 3  WI- 8  WY- 1

What's interesting is--assuming the Dem states remain Dem states for the most part and the GOP states GOP states--is that the losses in NY, PA, MI, MA and NJ will be made up by huge gains in CA.

[Bogart]

what Michigan is going to lose another seat in 2010. 

As i mentioned earlier, MI is sitting on the bubble for 2010. Using the 2003 census estimates and projecting it forward to 2010, put MI as the 435th seat to given out. It would take very little change to move them to seat number 436, meaning that they lose one seat.

I've seen the Census projections for 2010 that Bogart uses. I'm not convinced of the model, since it was largely set by patterns in the 1990's. I've used the 2003 estimates which should reflect new demographic patterns since 2000. For instance, recent estimates greatly reduce the rate of growth in CA. The older projections have 2-4 more house seats for CA than do projections based on the new estimates.

Yeah, there are any number of projections. I've done this exercise with a couple different sets. All you can really predict for sure are trends. The trend is that MI will lose another seat. Whether it will be in 2010 or 2020 is impossible to say.

What is interesting, is that these projections would indicate that MT picks up a second seat, but MI and PA lose seats. It's all about priority values.

[Bogart]

It all depends on what population size you use to calculate priority values for each state gaining an additional seat after the first seat mandated by the Constitution. To do so, you take your priority multipliers and mulitiply them by the estimated population. Once you have these, you simply sort them in decending order until you reach the desired number of seats to allocate--435.

For this, I simply used available population projections provided by the Census Bureau. As was pointed out, the model projections I used may be flawed. Suffice to say, over the long haul, CA will gain seats at the expense of eastern states like PA, NY and MI. Interestingly enough, MT would probably also gain an additional seat in the projection I used.