Prediction: Will Wyoming pass Vermont in population by 2020?
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 01:13:04 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Prediction: Will Wyoming pass Vermont in population by 2020?
« previous next »
Pages: [1]
Poll
Question: Will it?
#1
Yes
 
#2
No
 
Show Pie Chart
Partisan results

Total Voters: 41

Author Topic: Prediction: Will Wyoming pass Vermont in population by 2020?  (Read 4226 times)
ElectionsGuy
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 21,107
United States


Political Matrix
E: 7.10, S: -7.65

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: August 18, 2014, 01:14:27 AM »

I know it sounds crazy, but lets look at some numbers:

2000:

Vermont: 608,827
Wyoming: 493,782

2010:

Vermont: 625,741
Wyoming: 563,626

2013 Estimate:

Vermont: 626,630
Wyoming: 582,658

According to the current growth rates, it would be neck and neck by 2020. I'm going to say yes.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: August 18, 2014, 08:21:08 AM »

At current growth rates using the 2010-2013 estimates WY projects to have 629K in 2020 and VT projects to have 633K. That's close enough to be within the margin of error and slight shifts in the mean growth rate can easily flip the results. It's within the difference between the census used for apportionment and the census used for redistricting which excludes overseas military from the state. That was about 4K for each state.
Logged
OAM
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 597


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: August 19, 2014, 04:04:45 AM »

I'm 50/50 on the question, voting no to counter my bias of wanting VT to slip, so I have one more reason to tease my friends from there Wink
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: August 19, 2014, 10:54:19 PM »

I'm not really sure either way but I think the actual result will depend in large part on the state of the coal industry after the new president and Congress are elected in 2016.  If coal (finally) goes down then I imagine Wyoming's population will either stagnate or fall.  If coal continues to dominate the energy scene then I would guess Wyoming has a good chance of passing Vermont by 2020 and almost definitely by 2025.

Side note: regardless of the outcome of this little watermelon seed spitting contest, the fact that both of these states rank in the bottom five when it comes to population per House seat coupled with the fact that Montana, South Dakota, and Delaware are the three most underrepresented states in the House makes really a strong argument for increasing the number of representatives we have.  States with only one representative should ideally have a population equal to the median district size IMO.
Logged
SNJ1985
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 2,274
United States
Political Matrix
E: 0.19, S: 7.57

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: August 20, 2014, 08:44:47 PM »

Yeah, it looks pretty likely.
Logged
Person Man
Angry_Weasel
Atlas Superstar
*****
Posts: 36,681
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: August 28, 2014, 03:13:05 PM »

I'm not really sure either way but I think the actual result will depend in large part on the state of the coal industry after the new president and Congress are elected in 2016.  If coal (finally) goes down then I imagine Wyoming's population will either stagnate or fall.  If coal continues to dominate the energy scene then I would guess Wyoming has a good chance of passing Vermont by 2020 and almost definitely by 2025.

Side note: regardless of the outcome of this little watermelon seed spitting contest, the fact that both of these states rank in the bottom five when it comes to population per House seat coupled with the fact that Montana, South Dakota, and Delaware are the three most underrepresented states in the House makes really a strong argument for increasing the number of representatives we have.  States with only one representative should ideally have a population equal to the median district size IMO.

Even if coal goes to sh**t, they still have fracking and renewables. Also, I imagine that geopolitical instability might cut off demand for cheap coal. Wyoming is a state of booms and busts. Some towns have just recovered from the last but in the 80s.
Logged
TDAS04
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 23,465
Bhutan


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: September 07, 2014, 08:21:07 PM »

It's about a tossup, but I guess no. 
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: January 17, 2021, 04:55:41 PM »

Wyoming, like New Mexico, was awfully stagnant this decade, at least compared to most other Western states. Its population is projected to have only increased by 3.3% (from 563,626 to a projected 582,328)!

Why was that?
Logged
Tartarus Sauce
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,363
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: January 17, 2021, 05:24:01 PM »
« Edited: January 17, 2021, 06:34:18 PM by Tartarus Sauce »

Wyoming, like New Mexico, was awfully stagnant this decade, at least compared to most other Western states. Its population is projected to have only increased by 3.3% (from 563,626 to a projected 582,328)!

Why was that?

2.7%, actually (578,759). It lost population in the last 1-2 years.

Probably because despite the oodles of cheap land and tremendous potential for developing a strong renewables market with solar and wind farms, Wyoming has spent the past several decades putting all its eggs in the coal basket. For at least 30 years, Wyoming has been dramatically ramping up coal production at massive surface mines, particularly in the northeast quadrant of the state, to the point that it now dominates the coal market in America. As the coal industry now sings it final swan song, the state finds itself with a needlessly underdeveloped economy. About the only other sectors propping the state up are ranching, which isn't particularly effective at driving population growth, and tourism, which is entirely confined to Yellowstone and Jackson Hole.
Logged
Biden his time
Abdullah
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,644
United States


P P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: January 17, 2021, 07:23:43 PM »

2.7%, actually (578,759). It lost population in the last 1-2 years.


578,759 is the 2019 vintage estimate (Google's slightly out of date). The 2020 vintage estimate is 582,328. That's splitting hairs, though, anyway. 2020 census results will come out in a matter of weeks.

Probably because despite the oodles of cheap land and tremendous potential for developing a strong renewables market with solar and wind farms, Wyoming has spent the past several decades putting all its eggs in the coal basket. For at least 30 years, Wyoming has been dramatically ramping up coal production at massive surface mines, particularly in the northeast quadrant of the state, to the point that it now dominates the coal market in America. As the coal industry now sings it final swan song, the state finds itself with a needlessly underdeveloped economy. About the only other sectors propping the state up are ranching, which isn't particularly effective at driving population growth, and tourism, which is entirely confined to Yellowstone and Jackson Hole.

Surprise  Next West Virginia incoming?
Logged
Pages: [1]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.045 seconds with 14 queries.