Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
August 30, 2015, 03:00:12 pm
HomePredMockPollEVCalcAFEWIKIHelpLogin Register
News: Be sure to enable your "Ultimate Profile" for even more goodies on your profile page!

+  Atlas Forum
|-+  General Politics
| |-+  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
| | |-+  What 2010 Census Tells Us About 2020 Reapportionment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] Print
Author Topic: What 2010 Census Tells Us About 2020 Reapportionment  (Read 2111 times)
Miles
MilesC56
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17389
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.19, S: 4.52

View Profile
« on: December 29, 2011, 12:00:15 pm »
Ignore

I thought that this was an informative article.
Logged


muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9958


View Profile
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2011, 12:30:42 pm »

He doesn't describe his methodology, but I can compare to my projections. The only difference in result is that I project a seat to VA instead of to OR. But he acknowledged that OR was #435 and VA was at #437 on his list. However, beyond #437 his bubble list is quite different than mine.

I used the July 2011 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 15 month period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CO-8, AL-7, VA-12, CA-54, and FL-28 (#435).
The next five in line are WV-3, OR-6, NY-27, AZ-10, LA-7.
Logged

My updated county map post road trip. Red is a residence; blue is an overnight stay; cyan is an intentional destination; green is just a drive through.

krazen1211
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6076


View Profile
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2011, 01:46:35 pm »
Ignore

Interesting. Louisiana was -1 even pre Katrina.
Logged
Snowstalker's Last Stand
Snowstalker
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 19410
Greece


View Profile
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2011, 02:41:47 pm »
Ignore

I anticipate a Texas collapse.
Logged

muon2
Moderator
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9958


View Profile
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2011, 04:09:33 pm »

Interesting. Louisiana was -1 even pre Katrina.


It surprised me as well. I looked back at last year's reapportionment and saw that LA didn't miss keeping its 7th district by much. It had the population for 6.4 CDs and grew at the national average last year. That will keep in on pace to stay at 6.4 CDs, so it's on the bubble. At 6.5 CDs it probably gets in.
Logged

My updated county map post road trip. Red is a residence; blue is an overnight stay; cyan is an intentional destination; green is just a drive through.

Snowguy716
snowguy716
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18348
Austria


View Profile
« Reply #5 on: December 30, 2011, 03:01:10 am »
Ignore

I anticipate a Texas collapse.
It all depends on the weather.  Though I agree it's not looking good.

People will say that desalination will save them... I don't think that'll happen.  For one, it would require a massive investment in the technology right now... and that means building it with today's technology, which, frankly, isn't that good.  It costs a sh**t-ton of money to desalinate enough water for as many people as Texas has.  They also have no alternative.  Because the Great Lakes lie within the borders of two nations and the states and provinces surrounding the lakes have agreed that no water may be drawn from the lakes that is not replaced within the same water year.. that ain't gonna happen.

If we continue to experience La Niņa conditions as frequently as we have in the past 4 years, Texas is going to have a major problem on their hands.  Unlike the much worse droughts of 1908-1911, 1917-1919, and 1954-1957, it won't take but a relatively light drought to cause major problems for them.  Their population is simply too large these days.  On top of that, the Oglala Aquifer is draining very quickly.  Kansas and Nebraska need that water so they can grow that winter wheat, you know!  Because without irrigation from unsustainable sources, most years are unfit for growing cereal crops as intensely as we do in those areas.  Never mind the Keystone XL pipeline proposed to go over that area which would greatly benefit Texas... as long as it doesn't spill and seep into the aquifer... the equivalent of Texas shooting themselves in the foot and then ejecting explosive diarrhea all the way up the southern and central plains.  But Texas has always had a "take the money and run" attitude.

In the end, the cost of water in Texas is going to be enormous.  And the fight between agriculture and the suburban "I've got mine" crowd will only intensify.  And when the next intense drought hits.. it'll devastate the agricultural sector there while also driving the cost of drinking water through the roof.  Even in liberal Austin.  Especially in liberal Austin (and Dallas too).

Potable water in the 21st century will have an uncanny resemblance as a political issue to oil in the 20th century.
Logged

"Above and beyond the question of how to grow the economy there is a legitimate concern about how to grow the quality of our lives."
-Paul Wellstone


"The message was that you are so well trained to believe what you see... That you believed what you saw."

Minnesota Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party
Pages: [1] Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Logout

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines