Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its estimates of the populations in each state for July 1, 2005. A press release and excel file contain the official info.

As in previous years I have used this data to project the House apportionment for 2010. My methodology and projections follow.

The Census provides an apportionment population and base residential population for April 1, 2000. The apportionment population includes residents out of state such as overseas military personnel. An annual rate is calculated from the base population and the new estimate (July 1, 2005) using a period of 5.25 years. The annual rate is applied to the base population for a period of 10 years, and the difference between the 2000 apportionment population and base population is added. This results in a projected apportionment population for each state.

The House seats are apportioned on the priority method used for past decennial reapportionments. Each state is assigned one seat. An average number of residents per seat is calulated each state with the current seat assignment and for an assignment of one additional seat. The priority is calculated for each state by taking the geometric mean of those two averages. The state with the highest priority is given the next seat, and its next priority is calculated. The process continues until 435 seats are assigned.

The 2010 projections would result in these changes:

AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1

The following states were the last to get seats: 431 AL-7, 432 PA-18, 433 CA-54, 434 AZ-10, 435 FL-28.

These states would be next in line to get seats: 436 MN-8, 437 MI-15, 438 NY-36, 439 IL-19, 440 LA-7.

Compared to the 2004 estimates this is one additional seat for AZ and FL, and one less for MI and MN.

Note that this does not include the affects of relocations due to Katrina which occurred after the date of the estimates. To test the effects I moved 300K from LA in 2010 and assigned 150K to TX, 50K to GA and 20K to each of AR, CA, NC, SC, and TN. That amount of movement had no effect on the reapportionment, though MO would be at priority 440 instead of LA.

[AkSaber]

Hey I was just wondering about this today! I really wanted to see the 2005 numbers. Thanks for posting this!!

Compared to the 2004 estimates this is one additional seat for AZ and FL, and one less for MI and MN.

I noticed that from last year's projections.

I remember the fastest growing states last year.

2004                                        2005
1. Nevada                                1. Nevada
2. Arizona                                 2. Arizona
3. Florida                                  3. Idaho
4. Idaho                                   4. Florida
5. Georgia                                5. Utah
6. Texas                                   6. Georgia
7. Utah                                     7. Texas
8. Delaware                              8. North Carolina
9. North Carolina                      9. Delaware
10. New Mexico                       10. Oregon

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

[Joe Republic]

I didn't notice this thread when I posted an article about it elsewhere.

Take a look:

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20051222/D8EL8GCG9.html

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

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

Florida is now the fastest growing state in the union.....boooo...

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

First, from 1920 - 1950 the trend was for people to move from rural areas to big cities. This fueled the New Deal vote.

Second, while suburbs established before World War II are frequently limosine liberal and trending Democra, most suburbs established post war are trending Republican. 

[opebo]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

Nevada is trending Democrat, but Florida is much less clear.  However all the demographic gains for Republicans in fast growing states will be whiped out if Ohio flips Democrat, which considering its dire economic situation, seems likely.

[riceowl]

What happens when seats are taken away from a state? Is the congressman just booted out? or what?

[Dave from Michigan]

crap I hope we don't lose another seat, they need to increase the size of congress.

[Emsworth]

What happens when seats are taken away from a state? Is the congressman just booted out? or what?

The reapportionment does not take effect in the middle of a session; it only takes effect at the end of one term and the beginning of another. Thus, there would be no need to kick out a congressman.

[muon2]

What happens when seats are taken away from a state? Is the congressman just booted out? or what?

The reapportionment does not take effect in the middle of a session; it only takes effect at the end of one term and the beginning of another. Thus, there would be no need to kick out a congressman.

Yes. The Census will release its 2010 apportionment data near the end of December that year. The states will create new districts during 2011 using their various rules. Candidates then file for the new districts for the 2012 elections, and the new districts are official when Congress is seated in 2013. The one state that is an exception is ME, which if it continues as for the last cycle, draws its map later and will have new districts for the 2014 election.

[Cubby]

Last year the Census Bureau said Massachusetts was the only state whose population declined. (This was probably due to Bush appointees at the bureau who were angered about gay marriage)

This year, they say not only MA declined, but also Rhode Island and New York. Yet North Dakota grew for the 2nd year in a row. And West Virginia too. Who the hell moves to West Virginia??

Does anyone think the Census Bureau is biased against the Northeast?
I know we are the slowest growing region, but its as if growing slowly wasn't enough for them, now we have to decline as well
If we didn't lose population in the 1990's, when the regional economy was bad due to the defense industry closings, then we can't be doing worse now.

And the reason can't be housing costs, since Connecticut still grew and we are the most expensive state in the country.

[Beet]

1. Actually the first wave of Northeastern urbanization hit its relative peak in 1930, even before the New Deal. The cities that we now call the rust belt began to decline at that time, though final absolute decline was not seen until about 1950.

2. Yeah, the Census bureau is biased Pym. Statistical facts are clearly being twisted by the rhetorical magic surrounding them.

It might be better to ask why the housing market is biased. If people are moving into North Dakota and West Virginia, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price or quantity of housing should be growing in those areas, while it should be falling in New York and Boston.

Clearly this is not the case, quite the opposite. The market boom has been most pronounced in those regions which are losing population.

WHY?

[minionofmidas]

New York City is certainly not declining ... upstate New York is. While I wouldn't call them biased, the Census Bureau's estimates may well be wrong ... IIRC they failed to catch Michigan's seat loss last time around, not because they overestimated Michigan's population but because they underestimated many other states'. They did predict that North Dakota lost population throughout the 1990s, that didn't happen. They also overestimated DC's population loss.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

While I wouldn't call them biased, the Census Bureau's estimates may well be wrong ...

^^^

[Dave from Michigan]

New York City is certainly not declining ... upstate New York is. While I wouldn't call them biased, the Census Bureau's estimates may well be wrong ... IIRC they failed to catch Michigan's seat loss last time around, not because they overestimated Michigan's population but because they underestimated many other states'. They did predict that North Dakota lost population throughout the 1990s, that didn't happen. They also overestimated DC's population loss.

what were we suppose to lose two seats

[AkSaber]

I was wondering, is there any way to find a list of all 50 states in order of how fast they're growing?

[12th Doctor]

1. Actually the first wave of Northeastern urbanization hit its relative peak in 1930, even before the New Deal. The cities that we now call the rust belt began to decline at that time, though final absolute decline was not seen until about 1950.

2. Yeah, the Census bureau is biased Pym. Statistical facts are clearly being twisted by the rhetorical magic surrounding them.

It might be better to ask why the housing market is biased. If people are moving into North Dakota and West Virginia, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price or quantity of housing should be growing in those areas, while it should be falling in New York and Boston.

Clearly this is not the case, quite the opposite. The market boom has been most pronounced in those regions which are losing population.

WHY?

I think you have it backwards.  People are starting to move out of those areas because the cost of living has risen so high there.

[Beet]

1. Actually the first wave of Northeastern urbanization hit its relative peak in 1930, even before the New Deal. The cities that we now call the rust belt began to decline at that time, though final absolute decline was not seen until about 1950.

2. Yeah, the Census bureau is biased Pym. Statistical facts are clearly being twisted by the rhetorical magic surrounding them.

It might be better to ask why the housing market is biased. If people are moving into North Dakota and West Virginia, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price or quantity of housing should be growing in those areas, while it should be falling in New York and Boston.

Clearly this is not the case, quite the opposite. The market boom has been most pronounced in those regions which are losing population.

WHY?

I think you have it backwards.  People are starting to move out of those areas because the cost of living has risen so high there.

Then prices should be falling, not rising.

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

1. Actually the first wave of Northeastern urbanization hit its relative peak in 1930, even before the New Deal. The cities that we now call the rust belt began to decline at that time, though final absolute decline was not seen until about 1950.

2. Yeah, the Census bureau is biased Pym. Statistical facts are clearly being twisted by the rhetorical magic surrounding them.

It might be better to ask why the housing market is biased. If people are moving into North Dakota and West Virginia, the law of supply and demand suggests that the price or quantity of housing should be growing in those areas, while it should be falling in New York and Boston.

Clearly this is not the case, quite the opposite. The market boom has been most pronounced in those regions which are losing population.

WHY?

I think you have it backwards.  People are starting to move out of those areas because the cost of living has risen so high there.

Indeed. Most of the yankees I know that live here are here because of prices, taxes and politics. Many many of the yankees I know here that are my age are conservative leaning.

[muon2]

I was wondering, is there any way to find a list of all 50 states in order of how fast they're growing?

The Census Bureau has files that include the rankings by total population growth and percent.  There are files for annual change from 7/1/04 to 7/1/05 and cumulative change from 4/1/00 to 7/1/05.

[Alcon]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

First, from 1920 - 1950 the trend was for people to move from rural areas to big cities. This fueled the New Deal vote.

Second, while suburbs established before World War II are frequently limosine liberal and trending Democra, most suburbs established post war are trending Republican. 

Where are you getting this information from?  You couldn't see that unless you analysed precinct returns countrywide.  Have you done so?