EDS Releases New Reapportionment Estimates

[Torie]

Here is an update as to how the CD's will move around among the states, with NY dropping two seats, and Florida picking up two (which apparently is a surprise). Oh, and Missouri rather than Minnesota drops a seat. Texas picks up four seats, and Ohio drops two.

[Brittain33]

I'm really curious how a "private sector demographic firm" has access to "tentative Census data" absent a leak. Either Politico is misrepresenting a private group's estimates as linked to the official census or... well I don't have an "or," I think that's it. Not that this doesn't have some value.

[Brittain33]

Yes, it's private-sector data.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/eyeon2010/2010/09/reapportionment-estimates-alte.html\

Keep hope alive, New York.

[Verily]

No way Florida gains two seats, whatever else changes. The report probably just projected growth rates from the 2006-2008 ACS on to 2010 or something equally useless.

[jimrtex]

I'm really curious how a "private sector demographic firm" has access to "tentative Census data" absent a leak. Either Politico is misrepresenting a private group's estimates as linked to the official census or... well I don't have an "or," I think that's it. Not that this doesn't have some value.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/florida-could-get-two-new-congressional-seats-939157.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDS annually does reapportionment estimates based on the mid-year Census Bureau estimates released in December, projected forward to 2010.  April 2010, The most recent report shows estimates using different projection intervals, and includes spreadsheets.

http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_Appor09wTables.pdf

So ESRI has done some more fine tuned population estimates, which EDS has calculated new estimates.

The changes from the estimates based on projecting Census Bureau estimates are:

FL and TX +1 (to 2 and 4), and NY and MO -1 to (-2 and -1)

Florida had earlier been projected to gain a 2nd seat, and then a slowdown, including net outward migration, had caused the estimate to barely drop below 2.  Texas has fluctuated between 3 and 4, and the 4th will be largely dependent on other states, since on a relative share of the USA population it is short of 35.5.

Missouri had been previously been projected to lose a seat, but had more recently been projected to barely hold on.

I suspect that if there was a margin of error attached to the estimates, that the probability of these last switches would be a lot closer to 50% than 100%.

[muon2]

I'm really curious how a "private sector demographic firm" has access to "tentative Census data" absent a leak. Either Politico is misrepresenting a private group's estimates as linked to the official census or... well I don't have an "or," I think that's it. Not that this doesn't have some value.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/florida-could-get-two-new-congressional-seats-939157.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

EDS annually does reapportionment estimates based on the mid-year Census Bureau estimates released in December, projected forward to 2010.  April 2010, The most recent report shows estimates using different projection intervals, and includes spreadsheets.

http://www.electiondataservices.com/images/File/NR_Appor09wTables.pdf

So ESRI has done some more fine tuned population estimates, which EDS has calculated new estimates.

The changes from the estimates based on projecting Census Bureau estimates are:

FL and TX +1 (to 2 and 4), and NY and MO -1 to (-2 and -1)

Florida had earlier been projected to gain a 2nd seat, and then a slowdown, including net outward migration, had caused the estimate to barely drop below 2.  Texas has fluctuated between 3 and 4, and the 4th will be largely dependent on other states, since on a relative share of the USA population it is short of 35.5.

Missouri had been previously been projected to lose a seat, but had more recently been projected to barely hold on.

I suspect that if there was a margin of error attached to the estimates, that the probability of these last switches would be a lot closer to 50% than 100%.

I was at the meeting where these new projections were announced. ESRI is a major GIS company that provides mapping tools and data sets. One of the data sets includes current and five-year projections. It's based on Census estimates plus a lot of other data collected by the company and used to adjust the Census estimates. The latest edition was just released, and EDS used the state-level data to calculate apportionments.

Like any estimated data set it's subject to the model used to build it. FL is tricky because of the large number of snowbirds. They can choose either FL or their home state as their Census residence, and its hard to model. I'm told that officials from MN spent time last winter in FL to try to convince those snowbirds from that state to use MN not FL on their Census form. No one knows with any certainty how they finally answered until the figures are released at the end of the year.

[jimrtex]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

[tmthforu94]

That'd be great if Minnesota didn't lose a seat. Then Bachmann would be safe.

[Smash255]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

How they got that data based off previous estimates seems a bit odd.

For example in Florida the estimated population difference between 09 and 2010 increased by 380,000, that is the 2nd largest yearly increase this decade (03-04 had an increase in 395,000 according to estimates) and between double and triple the increase of the past few years.

NY would be seeing an increase of just 2,000 from 09.  75,000, 35,000 and 66,000 have been the yearly increases the last three years

[jimrtex]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

How they got that data based off previous estimates seems a bit odd.

For example in Florida the estimated population difference between 09 and 2010 increased by 380,000, that is the 2nd largest yearly increase this decade (03-04 had an increase in 395,000 according to estimates) and between double and triple the increase of the past few years.

NY would be seeing an increase of just 2,000 from 09.  75,000, 35,000 and 66,000 have been the yearly increases the last three years

I think the Census Bureau estimates and the ESRI estimates are independent of each other.

The only connection is that EDS has practice in converting state population totals into apportionment estimates AND disseminating the results in a manner that newspapers, etc. can easily pick up and produce articles.

If the Census Bureau included estimates of error, one could produce probability estimates of apportionment.  It is really not correct to say that Missouri will lose a seat, when it would be better to say that it has an X% chance of losing a seat.

[Smash255]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

How they got that data based off previous estimates seems a bit odd.

For example in Florida the estimated population difference between 09 and 2010 increased by 380,000, that is the 2nd largest yearly increase this decade (03-04 had an increase in 395,000 according to estimates) and between double and triple the increase of the past few years.

NY would be seeing an increase of just 2,000 from 09.  75,000, 35,000 and 66,000 have been the yearly increases the last three years

I think the Census Bureau estimates and the ESRI estimates are independent of each other.

The only connection is that EDS has practice in converting state population totals into apportionment estimates AND disseminating the results in a manner that newspapers, etc. can easily pick up and produce articles.

If the Census Bureau included estimates of error, one could produce probability estimates of apportionment.  It is really not correct to say that Missouri will lose a seat, when it would be better to say that it has an X% chance of losing a seat.

The 2009 ERSI estimates match up to the 2009 census estimates.

[jimrtex]

The 2009 ERSI estimates match up to the 2009 census estimates.

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.


State                ESRI 2010   Est. 2009  Change
Alabama              4,735,593   4,708,708   0.57%
Alaska                 695,751     698,473  -0.39%
Arizona              6,723,229   6,595,778   1.93%
Arkansas             2,923,603   2,889,450   1.18%
California          37,983,948  36,961,664   2.77%
Colorado             5,114,102   5,024,748   1.78%
Connecticut          3,535,787   3,518,288   0.50%
Delaware               893,724     885,122   0.97%
Florida             18,917,612  18,537,969   2.05%
Georgia             10,014,045   9,829,211   1.88%
Hawaii               1,309,580   1,295,178   1.11%
Idaho                1,581,697   1,545,801   2.32%
Illinois            13,089,726  12,910,409   1.39%
Indiana              6,479,832   6,423,113   0.88%
Iowa                 3,057,995   3,007,856   1.67%
Kansas               2,841,378   2,818,747   0.80%
Kentucky             4,339,471   4,314,113   0.59%
Louisiana            4,507,335   4,492,076   0.34%
Maine                1,338,645   1,318,301   1.54%
Maryland             5,730,892   5,699,478   0.55%
Massachusetts        6,555,736   6,593,587  -0.57%
Michigan            10,104,633   9,969,727   1.35%
Minnesota            5,334,772   5,266,214   1.30%
Mississippi          2,996,685   2,951,996   1.51%
Missouri             6,003,689   5,987,580   0.27%
Montana                983,932     974,989   0.92%
Nebraska             1,822,473   1,796,619   1.44%
Nevada               2,748,294   2,643,085   3.98%
New Hampshire        1,329,915   1,324,575   0.40%
New Jersey           8,822,373   8,707,739   1.32%
New Mexico           2,080,039   2,009,671   3.50%
New York            19,543,731  19,541,453   0.01%
North Carolina       9,552,054   9,380,884   1.82%
North Dakota           662,194     646,844   2.37%
Ohio                11,605,005  11,542,645   0.54%
Oklahoma             3,720,244   3,687,050   0.90%
Oregon               3,865,839   3,825,657   1.05%
Pennsylvania        12,574,407  12,604,767  -0.24%
Rhode Island         1,058,412   1,053,209   0.49%
South Carolina       4,649,749   4,561,242   1.94%
South Dakota           827,263     812,383   1.83%
Tennessee            6,366,430   6,296,254   1.11%
Texas               25,268,853  24,782,302   1.96%
Utah                 2,841,749   2,784,572   2.05%
Vermont                626,078     621,760   0.69%
Virginia             7,965,681   7,882,590   1.05%
Washington           6,756,150   6,664,195   1.38%
West Virginia        1,842,096   1,819,777   1.23%
Wisconsin            5,741,617   5,654,774   1.54%
Wyoming                548,154     544,270   0.71%

[they don't love you like i love you]

That'd be great if Minnesota didn't lose a seat. Then Bachmann would be safe.

This map would oust her:

[ilikeverin]

That'd be great if Minnesota didn't lose a seat. Then Bachmann would be safe.

This map would oust her:

Ewwww.  I don't think it'd fly.

[they don't love you like i love you]

That'd be great if Minnesota didn't lose a seat. Then Bachmann would be safe.

This map would oust her:

Ewwww.  I don't think it'd fly.

If the DFL has complete control of the redistricting, why not? It's no worse than other states' gerrymanders.

[Smash255]

The 2009 ERSI estimates match up to the 2009 census estimates.

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.


State                ESRI 2010   Est. 2009  Change
Alabama              4,735,593   4,708,708   0.57%
Alaska                 695,751     698,473  -0.39%
Arizona              6,723,229   6,595,778   1.93%
Arkansas             2,923,603   2,889,450   1.18%
California          37,983,948  36,961,664   2.77%
Colorado             5,114,102   5,024,748   1.78%
Connecticut          3,535,787   3,518,288   0.50%
Delaware               893,724     885,122   0.97%
Florida             18,917,612  18,537,969   2.05%
Georgia             10,014,045   9,829,211   1.88%
Hawaii               1,309,580   1,295,178   1.11%
Idaho                1,581,697   1,545,801   2.32%
Illinois            13,089,726  12,910,409   1.39%
Indiana              6,479,832   6,423,113   0.88%
Iowa                 3,057,995   3,007,856   1.67%
Kansas               2,841,378   2,818,747   0.80%
Kentucky             4,339,471   4,314,113   0.59%
Louisiana            4,507,335   4,492,076   0.34%
Maine                1,338,645   1,318,301   1.54%
Maryland             5,730,892   5,699,478   0.55%
Massachusetts        6,555,736   6,593,587  -0.57%
Michigan            10,104,633   9,969,727   1.35%
Minnesota            5,334,772   5,266,214   1.30%
Mississippi          2,996,685   2,951,996   1.51%
Missouri             6,003,689   5,987,580   0.27%
Montana                983,932     974,989   0.92%
Nebraska             1,822,473   1,796,619   1.44%
Nevada               2,748,294   2,643,085   3.98%
New Hampshire        1,329,915   1,324,575   0.40%
New Jersey           8,822,373   8,707,739   1.32%
New Mexico           2,080,039   2,009,671   3.50%
New York            19,543,731  19,541,453   0.01%
North Carolina       9,552,054   9,380,884   1.82%
North Dakota           662,194     646,844   2.37%
Ohio                11,605,005  11,542,645   0.54%
Oklahoma             3,720,244   3,687,050   0.90%
Oregon               3,865,839   3,825,657   1.05%
Pennsylvania        12,574,407  12,604,767  -0.24%
Rhode Island         1,058,412   1,053,209   0.49%
South Carolina       4,649,749   4,561,242   1.94%
South Dakota           827,263     812,383   1.83%
Tennessee            6,366,430   6,296,254   1.11%
Texas               25,268,853  24,782,302   1.96%
Utah                 2,841,749   2,784,572   2.05%
Vermont                626,078     621,760   0.69%
Virginia             7,965,681   7,882,590   1.05%
Washington           6,756,150   6,664,195   1.38%
West Virginia        1,842,096   1,819,777   1.23%
Wisconsin            5,741,617   5,654,774   1.54%
Wyoming                548,154     544,270   0.71%

The 2009 estimates for ERSI and the Census bureau were exactly the same, the ERSI estimated gain between 2009 and 2010 was the 2nd highest yearly gain of the decade, and triple the gain between 2008 and 2009.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Who knows how much these will agree with the actual census numbers that will be released in December.

[jimrtex]

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.

The 2009 estimates for ERSI and the Census bureau were exactly the same, the ERSI estimated gain between 2009 and 2010 was the 2nd highest yearly gain of the decade, and triple the gain between 2008 and 2009.

Where are the 2009 ESRI estimates?  The ESRI estimates are based on small areas that the Census Bureau doesn't produce estimates for.  Do you really think that ESRI started with the 2009 Census Bureau estimates, and found a 2.8% increase for California?

[Smash255]

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.

The 2009 estimates for ERSI and the Census bureau were exactly the same, the ERSI estimated gain between 2009 and 2010 was the 2nd highest yearly gain of the decade, and triple the gain between 2008 and 2009.

Where are the 2009 ESRI estimates?  The ESRI estimates are based on small areas that the Census Bureau doesn't produce estimates for.  Do you really think that ESRI started with the 2009 Census Bureau estimates, and found a 2.8% increase for California?

Ahh my bad I was wrong.  I thought both the 09 and 2010 reapportionment estimates were based off that years ESRI's estimates, and was comparing your link to that from the census bureau's website.  They were obviously the same, but I thought your link for 09 was labeled ESRI not Census.