Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment

[The Duke]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

This map doesn't change too much about electoral politics.  Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania are all still big enough that they will determine the election in a race close enough that this sort of thing even matters.  Two out of three still wins it.

[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. 

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

With respect to the first point in my most recent post, just check the data.

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

[DanielX]

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??

West Virginia's eastern tip is growing quite a bit. It's the outer DC suburbs, and is considerably cheaper than the hideously expensive property further in. The MARC commuter rail has a line that runs from Martinsburg, West Virginia, all the way to Union Station in DC.

[Cubby]

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??

West Virginia's eastern tip is growing quite a bit. It's the outer DC suburbs, and is considerably cheaper than the hideously expensive property further in. The MARC commuter rail has a line that runs from Martinsburg, West Virginia, all the way to Union Station in DC.

That explains part of it I guess, but thats only 3 counties, they'd have to be booming like Loudoun County (fastest in the nation ) to reverse the entire state trend. Most of the rest of West Virginia hasn't grown since the 1940's. 

[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.

what were we suppose to lose two seats

You were supposed to narrowly escape any seat loss at all.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Who the hell moves to West Virginia??

People who left West Virginia to get some work and all that and who have come back?* Maybe not many now but hopefully in a few years... You also have the Eastern Panhandle.

As for the house prices thing... a lot of the new people in a lot of states will be living in new housing. More housing usually lowers the prices.
As for the metro areas, I suspect we're seeing a mix of speculation/investing, more subletting (and private renting in general?), lack of new housing (?) and so on...

*A trend we're starting to see over here in some of our old industrial areas.

[Beet]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, John.

So basically what you are saying is that people are buying simply in anticipation of appreciation-- that they are buying but not occupying, or renting at a loss?

Carl- I believe it's spelled "psephologist". I'm normally not a stickler for spelling but some people might not know what the term means. Also-- do you have a source for your claim? The D.C. suburbs have been trending Democrat since the 1970s and the vast majority of them were established after World War II.

[Alcon]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

[AkSaber]

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.

Thank you muon!!

[The Duke]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, John.

So basically what you are saying is that people are buying simply in anticipation of appreciation-- that they are buying but not occupying, or renting at a loss?

Yeah, I'm just going off what I see.  Here in Los angeles where I go to college I see a lot of land speculation.  My parents almost got in on it, and a lot of people, not all of them rich, that I know are getting in.

Another reason is that the big liberal cities have already grown so much in the past that even a modest rate of growth here in LA means a sharper rise in housing than in say, Riverside.  Riverside is growing much faster than LA right now, but prices in LA are higher.  Why?  Because LA has already filled almost the entire LA Basin and the entire San Fernando Valley with developement, whereas there's more available land in Riverside.  Riverside residents can easily acquire new land to live on and build housing and LA residents can't.

Interesting note on this:  Because LA cannot grow out anymore, we are starting to grow up.  High rise apartments, almost unheard west of downton 20 years ago, now constitute the bulk of developement in west LA.  LA is not going to be America's flattest city much longer, as 10 and 15 story buildings become commonplace.

[CARLHAYDEN]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

[Alcon]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

The problem with that argument is that the rich are even more likely to be Republican than those "escaping to the suburbs."  I've read The Emerging Republican Majority.  It is interesting, but I'd rather read a work that is not attempting to prove something.

[tarheel-leftist85]

I can't believe NC is not going to get an extra electoral vote in 2010.  I guess we just barely got that EV last time (in fact, I remember some kind of court battle, perhaps against UT).  Sometime in the next 25 years, we're supposed to get 2 more EVs.  At least GA seems to be dropping among the fastest-growing states, while NC is rising.  I guess that's because those scary GA exurbs will eventually fill up and people will have maximized their distance from the blacks.  Besides those white flight exurbs, GA seems to be stagnant, or slow-growing like SC (except for it's yuppie places like Lexington and York counties with Charleston).  North Carolina seems to be growing all over except for the Tidewater region IIRC.

[ilikeverin]

MN -1

Some thing wrong with their brain

[muon2]

MN -1

Some thing wrong with their brain

Don't panic yet. MN would get seat number 436 so it wouldn't take much extra growth to get them back to 435 or less. Think expansive thoughts.

[CARLHAYDEN]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

The problem with that argument is that the rich are even more likely to be Republican than those "escaping to the suburbs."  I've read The Emerging Republican Majority.  It is interesting, but I'd rather read a work that is not attempting to prove something.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

[ilikeverin]

MN -1

Some thing wrong with their brain

Don't panic yet. MN would get seat number 436 so it wouldn't take much extra growth to get them back to 435 or less. Think expansive thoughts.

Well, I'm a bit more worried about my precious Indiana but I'm just wondering why Minnesota would be losing a seat when we seem to be the immigration capital of the Midwest

[MarkDel]

.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

Carl Hayden,

That is one of the most "right on" things anyone has ever said on this forum. Amen.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, John.

So basically what you are saying is that people are buying simply in anticipation of appreciation-- that they are buying but not occupying, or renting at a loss?

Carl- I believe it's spelled "psephologist". I'm normally not a stickler for spelling but some people might not know what the term means. Also-- do you have a source for your claim? The D.C. suburbs have been trending Democrat since the 1970s and the vast majority of them were established after World War II.

First, please excuse the typo. Thanks for the correction.

Second, perhaps I did not make it clear, but I did not mean ALL suburbs that came into existance since WW II were trending Republican.

Third, CQ has analysis of this every four years.

[Beet]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, John.

So basically what you are saying is that people are buying simply in anticipation of appreciation-- that they are buying but not occupying, or renting at a loss?

Carl- I believe it's spelled "psephologist". I'm normally not a stickler for spelling but some people might not know what the term means. Also-- do you have a source for your claim? The D.C. suburbs have been trending Democrat since the 1970s and the vast majority of them were established after World War II.

First, please excuse the typo. Thanks for the correction.

Second, perhaps I did not make it clear, but I did not mean ALL suburbs that came into existance since WW II were trending Republican.

Third, CQ has analysis of this every four years.

Ok thanks.

[memphis]

.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

Carl Hayden,

That is one of the most "right on" things anyone has ever said on this forum. Amen.

How do you know this? Do you know a lot of old money people. Where I live, all wealthy people are very conservative, regardless of how long they've had their money.

[CARLHAYDEN]

.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

Carl Hayden,

That is one of the most "right on" things anyone has ever said on this forum. Amen.

How do you know this? Do you know a lot of old money people. Where I live, all wealthy people are very conservative, regardless of how long they've had their money.

First, I earlier cited sources.  Systematic data is atypical examples.

Second, yes I do know some 'old money' people.  Like any group they are not all in agreement, but they generally tend to favor 'liberal' positions on social issues.

Third, I really don't understand why liberals insist on using terms like "all."  I really doubt that "all" wealthy people where you live are very conservative.  But then, this may be a terminological matter since to some  those who don't admire Pol Pot are by definition "very conservative."  So, if this is typical of your definition of "very conservative," then I guess it is possible that ALL the wealthy people in your area are "very conservative."

[memphis]

.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

Carl Hayden,

That is one of the most "right on" things anyone has ever said on this forum. Amen.

How do you know this? Do you know a lot of old money people. Where I live, all wealthy people are very conservative, regardless of how long they've had their money.

First, I earlier cited sources.  Systematic data is atypical examples.

Second, yes I do know some 'old money' people.  Like any group they are not all in agreement, but they generally tend to favor 'liberal' positions on social issues.

Third, I really don't understand why liberals insist on using terms like "all."  I really doubt that "all" wealthy people where you live are very conservative.  But then, this may be a terminological matter since to some  those who don't admire Pol Pot are by definition "very conservative."  So, if this is typical of your definition of "very conservative," then I guess it is possible that ALL the wealthy people in your area are "very conservative."

Ok, you got me on a technicality. I'm sure that somewhere there is a liberal wealthy person in Memphis. What I should have said is that they are extremely rare. I think what is generally true about rich people, both new and old money, is that they are so caught up in their money that they don't give a damn about social issues. However, this does not make them liberal (or conservative.) It just means they don't care, and are therefore more likely to be permissive.

[Gustaf]

In my experience, people who come from wealthy families tend to be more culturally conservative than others, not necessarily socially conservative though.

[angus]

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.

Nice muon.  Thanks.  Just FYI, here are some estimates of the numbers of Katrina evacuees who still remain in various states (most come from LA):

TX 177000
MS 73000
GA 40000
FL 23000
AL 22000
... and about 20 other states have between 1 and 5000.

Source:  American Red Cross.

Hard to say how many of these will remain till the next decennial census, though.