2010 Reapportionment Projection

[Beet]

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its estimates for the populations of the 50 states as they stood on July 1, 2003. It's well known that the economy experienced a turning point in 2000, ending a long period of economic prosperity, and this has undoubtedly changed the state-by-state growth patterns from the way they were in the 1990's, so this data can give us an idea of what the state populations may look like in 2010. Furthermore, the next electoral map will be used in 2012, 2016, and 2020, so we'll be living with it for a long time. Here I present a tentative estimate of the population for each state in 2010 based on the state growth rates between 2000-2003. This was done by a simple extrapolation of the growth rate. While there are obvious flaws in this method, it gives us the best estimate available of what the population of the states will be, and thus what the 2010 apportionment will look like. Further, the Census Bureau extrapolates growth rates all the time, for example, when they say that Hispanics will be x% of the population by the year 2050. Certainly this 7-year estimate is far more conservative.

I calculated the average annual growth rate for each state by taking the LN(state pop 2003) - LN(state pop 2000) and dividing by 3. Then I assumed the same growth rate for each state for each of the seven years 2003-2010. Then I multiplied each the percentage of the estimated 2010 national population of each state's estimated 2010 population by 435, and rounded to the nearest whole integer. Adding all of the results plus 103 gave a total of 535. For the 2000 data, the total for the states calculated using this method was 536... two states that were nearest to being rounded up to the next number were bumped up; these states were North Carolina and California. This time, the states that were bumped up were Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Finally, an image of the probable 2010 apportionment emerged. All states remained the same except these:

Gainers:
.Texas (37, +3)

.Florida (29, +2)
.California (57, +2)

.Nevada (6, +1)
.Utah (6, +1)
.Arizona (11, +1)
.Georgia (16, +1)

Losers:
.Ohio (18, -2)
.New York (29, -2)

.Iowa (6, -1)
.Louisiana (8, -1)
Alabama (8, -1)
.Missouri (10, -1)
.Massachusetts (11, -1)
.Pennsylvania (20, -1)
.Illinois (20, -1)

The raw changes of course reflect absolute rather than percentage growth rates. Nevada was by far the fastest-growing state in the nation percentagewise. It can be argued that Nevada and Utah would be the biggest winners, because they would see their Congressional delegations grow by 33% each, from 3 to 4. Iowa would be the biggest loser percentagewise, losing a fifth of its representation. I have no map as of now.

The states that went for Gore would collectively lose another 4 electoral votes; the 2000 Bush states would gain 4. Though I'm not sure how relevant that would be in 2012.

[12th Doctor]

The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its estimates for the populations of the 50 states as they stood on July 1, 2003. It's well known that the economy experienced a turning point in 2000, ending a long period of economic prosperity, and this has undoubtedly changed the state-by-state growth patterns from the way they were in the 1990's, so this data can give us an idea of what the state populations may look like in 2010. Furthermore, the next electoral map will be used in 2012, 2016, and 2020, so we'll be living with it for a long time. Here I present a tentative estimate of the population for each state in 2010 based on the state growth rates between 2000-2003. This was done by a simple extrapolation of the growth rate. While there are obvious flaws in this method, it gives us the best estimate available of what the population of the states will be, and thus what the 2010 apportionment will look like. Further, the Census Bureau extrapolates growth rates all the time, for example, when they say that Hispanics will be x% of the population by the year 2050. Certainly this 7-year estimate is far more conservative.

I calculated the average annual growth rate for each state by taking the LN(state pop 2003) - LN(state pop 2000) and dividing by 3. Then I assumed the same growth rate for each state for each of the seven years 2003-2010. Then I multiplied each the percentage of the estimated 2010 national population of each state's estimated 2010 population by 435, and rounded to the nearest whole integer. Adding all of the results plus 103 gave a total of 535. For the 2000 data, the total for the states calculated using this method was 536... two states that were nearest to being rounded up to the next number were bumped up; these states were North Carolina and California. This time, the states that were bumped up were Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Finally, an image of the probable 2010 apportionment emerged. All states remained the same except these:

Gainers:
.Texas (37, +3)

.Florida (29, +2)
.California (57, +2)

.Nevada (6, +1)
.Utah (6, +1)
.Arizona (11, +1)
.Georgia (16, +1)

Losers:
.Ohio (18, -2)
.New York (29, -2)

.Iowa (6, -1)
.Louisiana (8, -1)
Alabama (8, -1)
.Missouri (10, -1)
.Massachusetts (11, -1)
.Pennsylvania (20, -1)
.Illinois (20, -1)

The raw changes of course reflect absolute rather than percentage growth rates. Nevada was by far the fastest-growing state in the nation percentagewise. It can be argued that Nevada and Utah would be the biggest winners, because they would see their Congressional delegations grow by 33% each, from 3 to 4. Iowa would be the biggest loser percentagewise, losing a fifth of its representation. I have no map as of now.

The states that went for Gore would collectively lose another 4 electoral votes; the 2000 Bush states would gain 4. Though I'm not sure how relevant that would be in 2012.

#1 a two year economic slow-down is not going to have a vast effect on moving patterns.

#2 That being said I think that your numbers for a shift are far too conservative and California will not gain.  If anything it will lose.  California will go back down to 54 and the dispersed population will be delt out amoung Arizona, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.

[Beet]

Well the numbers could certainly change but this is the only estimate so far based on census data rather than pure speculation. California's population grew an estimated 1.4% annually in 2000-2003 while the national average growth was 1%, and this was during the Silicon Valley crash and the Energy crisis. The other states you mentioned do have higher growth rates except Oregon, but their base population is so small it will take much longer for that to translate into substantive gains in representation.

[dunn]

I agree with soulty about CA - they will not grow in EV number , it will be 54-55

[muon2]

Another estimate using the same 2003 census data is at
http://www.polidata.org/census/bensen_dc05.pdf

It projects the population growth in a similar fashion, then uses the actual apportionment method. That method starts by assigning each state 1 representative seat. The next seat goes to the largest state and its population is then divided by two. Each additional seat goes to the largest state population divided by the number of seats already assigned. When all 435 seats have been assigned, reapportionment is complete.

By the analysis cited above:

Gainers:
TX +3
CA +2
FL +2
NV +1
UT +1
AZ +1
GA +1

Losers:
NY -2
OH -2
MA -1
PA -1
IL -1
MN -1
IA -1
MO -1
LA -1

[JohnFKennedy]

Another estimate using the same 2003 census data is at
http://www.polidata.org/census/bensen_dc05.pdf

It projects the population growth in a similar fashion, then uses the actual apportionment method. That method starts by assigning each state 1 representative seat. The next seat goes to the largest state and its population is then divided by two. Each additional seat goes to the largest state population divided by the number of seats already assigned. When all 435 seats have been assigned, reapportionment is complete.

By the analysis cited above:

Gainers:
TX +3
CA +2
FL +2
NV +1
UT +1
AZ +1
GA +1

Losers:
NY -2
OH -2
MA -1
PA -1
IL -1
MN -1
IA -1
MO -1
LA -1

Not good for the Democrats, most of the gainers (except CA) are solid Republicans and most of the losers are solid Democrats.

[© Tweed the Younger]

Arizona will grow alot, and California will stabilize.

[dunn]

[JohnFKennedy]

And all but one of the states those are in went to the Republicans

[dunn]

true, a gain for reps in the short term but dems moving to that area will eventually make some of them a toss up stats (2012, 2016 maybe)

[Kevinstat]

I don't like dealing with estimates (I like dealing with the actual census results even if they're not very accurate in some areas), so here are states that would gain or lose seats in Congress (and thus electoral votes) if each state's apportionment (resident plus oversees, but not plus Mormon missionaries as Utah residents learned in 2001) population grew by the exact same percentage from the 2000 to 2010 censuses as from the 1990 to 2000 censuses:

Gainers:
Arizona +2
Colorado +1
Florida +2
Georgia +1
Nevada +2
Oregon +1
Texas +3
Utah +1
Washington +1

Losers
California -1 (although they would not lose any seats or EVs if the Major Fractions method were used instead of the current Equal Proportions method)
Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Michigan -1 (but not under Major Fractions)
Missouri -1
New Jersey -1
New York -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -2
(Rhode Island and West Virgina would also lose 1 seat/EV under Major Fractions)

The last five seats in congress/EVs awarded and the first five "near miss" seats are as follows:

Under Equal Proportions:
431 Florida's 27th seat (29th EV)
432 West Virginia's 3rd seat (5th EV)
433 Nevada's 5th seat (7th EV)
434 Texas's 35th seat (37th EV)
435 Minnesota's 8th seat (10th EV)
-----
436 Califonia's 53rd seat (55th EV)
437 New Jersey's 13th seat (15th EV)
438 Michigan's 15th seat (17th EV)
439 Louisiana's 7th seat (9th EV)
440 Illinois's 19th seat (21st EV)

Under Major Fractions:
431 Texas's 35th seat (37th EV)
432 Nevada's 5th seat (7th EV)
433 Minnesota's 8th seat (10th EV)
434 Califonia's 53rd seat (55th EV)
435 Michigan's 15th seat (17th EV)
-----
436 New Jersey's 13th seat (15th EV)
437 Rhode Island's 2nd seat (4th EV)
438 West Virginia's 3rd seat (5th EV)
439 Illinois's 19th seat (21st EV)
440 Louisiana's 7th seat (9th EV)

Some people speculate that my home state of Maine may lose a seat in the reapportionment following the 2010 census, but if each state's apportionment population grew at the same rate between each consecutive census as from 1990 to 2000 (which I know won't come even close to happening, but it can give you a good idea as to what might happen), Maine would not lose a seat until after the 2040 census under the current method or after the 2030 census under the Major Fractions method.  So I think Maine is safe with two seats until at least the 2020 census reapportionment and likely beyond that.  

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[ilikeverin]

I doubt MN will decrease.  IMO the population has been on the upswing... lots of Hmong & Somali immigrants... people 'lured' by MN's high standard of living... if anything, it'll increase.

[zachman]

I doubt MN will decrease.  IMO the population has been on the upswing... lots of Hmong & Somali immigrants... people 'lured' by MN's high standard of living... if anything, it'll increase.

That's what I say about NH, but we too are only growing at the national average. Growth differs across the state.

[opebo]

These figures look good for A) the GOP and B) moderation of the Democrat party.

All those growing GOP states will go from strong GOP to lean GOP which will mean Republicans will still win more often than not, but a very moderate centrist Dem could hope to pick up places like Virginia, Arizona, Colorado.  In other words the net result is the country moves slightly rightward.

[Beet]

opebo for once we agree.

Muon-- it looks like they used the 01-03 data instead of the 00-03 data, but the results were almost exactly identical. The only difference was the switch between AL and MN... MN though is growing at a good rate and I think less likely to lose than AL, which is being passed by by GA and TN.

[Kevinstat]

Beet,

You mentioned Georgia and Tennessee in regards to Alabama.  You are probably already aware of this, but I just thought I'd let people know that the region a state belongs to has nothing to do with how many seats it gets.  If most states in a region just barely gain their last seat or just miss out on an extra seat, and the total number of seats in the region is a seat or more above or below what it should be, then that's just the way the cookie crumbles.  You may have been saying that since Tennessee and Georgia are growing faster than Alabama, having those growth hot spots nearby may make it less likely for Alabama to grow.  I appreciate your input though.  When I think of Alabama I think of a pretty stagnant place, but the deep south may be changing into an area of rapid growth (look at Georgia), so maybe Alabama will hold onto it's seventh congressional seat for the near future and even gain a seat before it loses one, although it doesn't seem likely now.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[muon2]

opebo for once we agree.

Muon-- it looks like they used the 01-03 data instead of the 00-03 data, but the results were almost exactly identical. The only difference was the switch between AL and MN... MN though is growing at a good rate and I think less likely to lose than AL, which is being passed by by GA and TN.

I ran the data myself with the base at 4/1/2000 and the estimates from 7/1/2003. That is technically a 3.25 year period. I then applied the official equal proportions method (it uses the geometric mean of the impact of current and next seat). I get the same as my earlier post except that Al loses instead of MN, so you are probably correct.

[Beet]

muon,

Yeah and if you use a 6.75 year time frame you can eliminate the 7/1 problem.

Kevin,

I don't know where you got the idea that I think regions affect the apportionment number of seats. There is no official designation of a "region" in the U.S. government that is used across the board. The closest thing to that would be the Federal Appeals Circuit, but as far as I'm aware those boundaries don't extend beyond the court system, so even if they wanted to make the regions as even as possible, they would not have any constitutional definition to go by. And under that system, Tennessee and Alabama are not in the same Circuit. Also, using regions to make decisions like that would probably require an amendment, due to new regions of the 1800s and early 1900s joining the union. But why Alabama is different from Georgia... IMHO, the "Sun Belt" is kind of an oversimplification of growth patterns. For example, Georgia has 5 of the country's 10 fastest-growing counties around the Atlanta suburbs. Its economy is booming at the same rate as Texas and Arizona, and in that sense it belongs to the sun belt, as does Florida and to some extent North Carolina. However, between Georgia and Texas are Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, three very slow growth states. Most of these are experiencing net population outflow. A person living in Alabama wouldn't find it very hard to pick themselves up and move across the state line, where opportunities are far brighter. Although geographically LA, MS and AL are part of the "sun belt" their deep south status does not gurantee them growth... indeed most estimates are that Louisiana will lose one representative in 2010. The question is whether AL falls more into the LA/MS category or the GA/NC/TN category... I would say the former.

[Kevinstat]

Thanks for the clarification, Beet.  I didn't mean to insult your intelligence.  I was concerned that some people might get the wrong idea from what you wrote.  Your explanation is actually one of the possible explanations I had in mind for your earlier comments.

Sincerely,

Kevin Lamoreau

[Gustaf]

Kevin, you turn up at the oddest discussions.

I think the general trend will be that moderately GOP states will trend Dem, while gaining EVs. Mdoerately Dem states will do the exact opposite, whereas the solid ones on both sides will generally lose. Who this favours in the long run is ahrd to say.

[angus]

Nice prediction beef.  I did something like what you did about 3 months ago, based on available US census numbers, and got almost exactly the same results, except I make California gain only one, New York lose only one.  I think I had Nevada gaining two, and some other state losing one, but I forget exactly.  I just took population changes from 2000 to 2003 and extrapolated to 2010.  

That's the easy part.  The hard part is predicting the flavor of the parties in 2012 and thus what the shifts mean, in a practical sense.  I won't even try.

[HockeyDude]

I'm just hoping Jersey dont lose one, I really don't think we will tho.  The South Jersey suburbs are constantly expanding.  

[© Tweed the Younger]

I'm just hoping Jersey dont lose one, I really don't think we will tho.  The South Jersey suburbs are constantly expanding.  

You haven't lose any in a few years...we lost two this time around

[Frodo]

not overly surprising -it is about as expensive to live in California as New York:

California Population Growth Rate Slows

By Daryl Kelley, Times Staff Writer

One of every eight Americans is a Californian, demographers reported today.

A study shows California grew by more than half a million people in 2004 for the sixth straight year, but the pace of growth was the slowest since the 1990s because of slowing immigration and birth rates.

Officially, the state grew by 539,000 residents last year — up 1.5% — to a total of 36.8 million, according to the new study by the state Department of Finance.

By comparison, California growth last peaked at about 647,000 new residents, or 1.9%, in 2001.

"These numbers show that California is still attractive to both people from other countries and within the nation," said demographer Linda Gage. "But our actual rate of growth is continuing to slow down, and that's been happening since 2001."

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-050205pop_lat,0,7767613.story?coll=la-home-headlines

[Beet]

Not surprising for a state where the median home is about to cost $500,000. Who the h*ll can afford to live in that place? No one.