The US population after the Census.

[??????????]

What do you think the population of the US will be?

I predict around 375 million.

[Beet]

The current census estimate is 309 million. If it were revealed that the Census had under counted 66 million people, it would be the biggest shock of our lifetimes.

[Bo]

Your projection might be correct for 2030, but not for 2010. My projection for 2010 would be about 310 million.

[Cubby]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

[Bo]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

In regards to RI, NE, and WV, I don't think any of them will lose House seats after 2010, but I'm pretty sure all of them will lose one House seat in either 2020 or 2030.

[Padfoot]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

In regards to RI, NE, and WV, I don't think any of them will lose House seats after 2010, but I'm pretty sure all of them will lose one House seat in either 2020 or 2030.

The fact that the House has remained at 435 members for 100 years is really starting to show in the ridiculous populations of the districts and the vast district population inequalities across state lines.  Its absolutely insane to think about a states with over 1 million people having only one Representative.

[jimrtex]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

If you look at the age-based estimates, about 3.5 million of the underestimate for 2000 was between 25 and  40, with about a 10% error in the 25-30 bracket.  There was another 2.2 million error in the under 25.  With everything over 35 more or less accurate.

The Census Bureau has reasonable good data for deaths and births.  They don't have especially good data for international migration.

[Tender Branson]

I`d say 312 Mio. people (without PR), including the slight annual underestimates of the Census Bureau.

(+/- 3 Mio.)

[CultureKing]

I'm going to go on a branch and say 316 million.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

In regards to RI, NE, and WV, I don't think any of them will lose House seats after 2010, but I'm pretty sure all of them will lose one House seat in either 2020 or 2030.

The fact that the House has remained at 435 members for 100 years is really starting to show in the ridiculous populations of the districts and the vast district population inequalities across state lines.  Its absolutely insane to think about a states with over 1 million people having only one Representative.

Couldn't agree more. It's time to drastically raise the number of Representatives.

[Bo]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

In regards to RI, NE, and WV, I don't think any of them will lose House seats after 2010, but I'm pretty sure all of them will lose one House seat in either 2020 or 2030.

The fact that the House has remained at 435 members for 100 years is really starting to show in the ridiculous populations of the districts and the vast district population inequalities across state lines.  Its absolutely insane to think about a states with over 1 million people having only one Representative.

Couldn't agree more. It's time to drastically raise the number of Representatives.

Agreed. Make the total number of Representatives 1,000. What is so special about the number 435, anyway?

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Agreed. Make the total number of Representatives 1,000. What is so special about the number 435, anyway?

We'd need to either give Representatives smaller offices (as if the House would ever agree to that or build more House office buildings (as if the Senate would ever agree to that).

More seriously, I don't see where we're going to ever get a sudden jump in the size.

Besides, we don't need 1,000 Representatives.  The ideal size according to the cube root axiom would be 677 for a population of 310 million, and even for States extreme prediction of 375 million, we only need 721.

I like the cube root axiom as it provides a good balance between wanting a small body to make the legislative process work better (The Senate's inability to work smoothly is due to the supermajority filibuster.  The House would be even worse than the Senate if Pelosi needed to corral another 43 Representatives to get anything done.) and larger body to allow Representatives to serve fewer constituents.

[EDIT: I must have been channeling the spirit of Carl Sagan earlier. ]

[RI]

Agreed. Make the total number of Representatives 1,000. What is so special about the number 435, anyway?

We'd need to either give Representatives smaller offices (as if the House would ever agree to that or build more House office buildings (as if the Senate would ever agree to that).

More seriously, I don't see where we're going to ever get a sudden jump in the size.

Besides, we don't need 1,000 Representatives.  The ideal size according to the cube root axiom would be 677 for a population of 310 million, and even for States extreme prediction of 375 million, we only need 721 million.

I like the cube root axiom as it provides a good balance between wanting a small body to make the legislative process work better (The Senate's inability to work smoothly is due to the supermajority filibuster.  The House would be even worse than the Senate if Pelosi needed to corral another 43 Representatives to get anything done.) and larger body to allow Representatives to serve fewer constituents.

That's a lot.

[12th Doctor]

The Census Bureau projected 274 or 275 Million for 2000, the actual count came in at 281.4 Million. They use fuzzy math.

They predict 309 Million now, but I predict 314 Million. That would be an 11.6% increase over 2000. About the same rate we grew in the Seventies, faster than in the 80's, less than the 90's. Numerically the increase in population would be the same as in the 90's (between 32 and 33 million people). House seats would average 721,839.

I hope Rhode Island doesn't lose its 2nd seat, and Nebraska and WV don't lose their 3rd. 

In regards to RI, NE, and WV, I don't think any of them will lose House seats after 2010, but I'm pretty sure all of them will lose one House seat in either 2020 or 2030.

The fact that the House has remained at 435 members for 100 years is really starting to show in the ridiculous populations of the districts and the vast district population inequalities across state lines.  Its absolutely insane to think about a states with over 1 million people having only one Representative.

Couldn't agree more. It's time to drastically raise the number of Representatives.

Agreed. Make the total number of Representatives 1,000. What is so special about the number 435, anyway?

435 is simply the number they had when they decided to freeze the growth of the body.

[memphis]

I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.

For better or worse, one of the jobs of a Representative is to provide constituent services, i.e., act as an ombudsman, for the people in their district.  Hence, more Critters would mean fewer people per Critter.

For another, smaller districts means that they are likelier to reflect the concerns of those districts as it would easier to make those districts homogeneous and compact.  For example, the concerns specific to Lexington and Beaufort Counties don't share much in common, even though they are both fairly Republican areas at opposite ends of the 2nd District.

[yougo1000]

310-320 Billion

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

310-320 Billion

This estimate may be a wee bit off.

[memphis]

310-320 Billion

This estimate may be a wee bit off.

This illustrates a huge problem with reporting of budget expenditures. A lot of people don't recognize the difference between a million and a billion.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

310-320 Billion

This estimate may be a wee bit off.

This illustrates a huge problem with reporting of budget expenditures. A lot of people don't recognize the difference between a million and a billion.

To put things in perspective, a million seconds is about eleven and a half days. A billion seconds is over 31 years.

[memphis]

310-320 Billion

This estimate may be a wee bit off.

This illustrates a huge problem with reporting of budget expenditures. A lot of people don't recognize the difference between a million and a billion.

To put things in perspective, a million seconds is about eleven and a half days. A billion seconds is over 31 years.

Yeah, a billion is a thousand million.

[Brittain33]

I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.

For better or worse, one of the jobs of a Representative is to provide constituent services, i.e., act as an ombudsman, for the people in their district.  Hence, more Critters would mean fewer people per Critter.

It's generally the staff that handles these issues, not the Critter, though, and this could be solved by hiring more staff members to handle constituent services. The amount of attention constituents want or need, and the resources to respond to it at the other end of the phone from the congressmen, should be constant no matter how many reps there are.

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.

For better or worse, one of the jobs of a Representative is to provide constituent services, i.e., act as an ombudsman, for the people in their district.  Hence, more Critters would mean fewer people per Critter.

It's generally the staff that handles these issues, not the Critter, though, and this could be solved by hiring more staff members to handle constituent services. The amount of attention constituents want or need, and the resources to respond to it at the other end of the phone from the congressmen, should be constant no matter how many reps there are.

Ultimately it is the “Critter” that represents the district, however. Having smaller constituencies would increase the chance of a legislator being able to cast his or her vote on the floor of the House secure in the knowledge that his or her vote is representative of the district to which he or she has been elected, whereas in larger districts voters from different areas often have conflicting interests.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I'll say 312,000,000.

[Verily]

I've yet to see anyone put forth a reason why more congresscritters would equal better government.

For better or worse, one of the jobs of a Representative is to provide constituent services, i.e., act as an ombudsman, for the people in their district.  Hence, more Critters would mean fewer people per Critter.

For another, smaller districts means that they are likelier to reflect the concerns of those districts as it would easier to make those districts homogeneous and compact.  For example, the concerns specific to Lexington and Beaufort Counties don't share much in common, even though they are both fairly Republican areas at opposite ends of the 2nd District.

Additionally, and IMO more importantly, more Critters means reduced influence of money and therefore of outside lobbying that does not represent the interests of citizens.

Smaller districts are cheaper to run in, and in districts that are sufficiently small, television advertising (the primary advantage for well-funded campaigns) becomes totally unfeasible even for the most cash-rich campaigner. Local campaigns run on shoestring budgets can more easily oust corrupt or incompetent incumbents when the districts are small, reducing the strength of "special interests" of all kinds as well as reducing the incumbency advantage that leads to so much poor policy.

As an absolute number, there might be more corrupt congressmen, but undoubtedly they would be significantly fewer as a percentage of the total body of the House and thus as a special interests voting bloc.