Official US 2010 Census Results

[minionofmidas]

Comparing  these estimates

Here are the calculated April 1, 2010 benchmark numbers for comparison purposes

to the census results... + means the census found more people. Rounding error possible (I rounded both rows before comparing). Sorted into four groups - major errors and minor errors (defined as over app. 1%) in either direction. Sorted geographically within groups.

Connecticut +44k
North Dakota +22k
Nebraska +18k
West Virginia +30k
Alabama +48k
Wyoming +11k
New Mexico +32k
Nevada +37k
Hawaii +59k

Maine +11k
Vermont +4k
New Jersey +51k
Pennsylvania +68k
Indiana +35k
Wisconsin +12k
Minnesota +11k
Iowa +28k
Kansas +18k
Delaware +6k
Maryland +44k
Virginia +53k
North Carolina +54k
South Carolina +20k
Florida +177k
Kentucky +5k
Tennessee +8k
Mississippi +6k
Arkansas +10k
Louisiana +11k
Oklahoma +32k
Texas +5k
Montana +9k
Idaho +8k
California +6k
Alaska +4k

Rhode Island nailed

New Hampshire -11k
Ohio -17k
Michigan -61k
Missouri -22k
South Dakota -4k
District of Columbia -5k
Washington -13k
Oregon -27k

Massachusetts -83k
New York -219k
Illinois -130k
Georgia -240k
Colorado -63k
Arizona -276k
Utah -63k

though listing Florida's almost 1% underestimate in the same category as the really, really remarkably accurate Texan and Californian estimates feels wrong. There's little rhyme or reason to the list, except for the whopping overestimates. These all come either from stagnant or high growth states, while the solid healthy middling growth type of state was fairly likely to be underestimated.
There are, of course, similarly patterned states without similar problems (cough Texas). Estimates are based on state-provided input, and I suppose the list is mostly an argument for inaccuracy of record-keeping in these states rather than census error.

[jimrtex]

I had a slightly difference sequence from you. Did you use resident or apportionment population? Apportionment population is larger and includes overseas military and government personnel.

#434 CA 53 (711.3 K)
#435 MN 8 (710.2)

#436 NC 14 (709.1 K)

This is extremely disappointing.  We had the possibility of California increasing its population share while losing representational share, and the snuck through in 434th again.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Lucky Minnestota !

[Gustaf]

So, the Kerry states+Ohio can no longer win for the Democrats.

[opebo]

So, the Kerry states+Ohio can no longer win for the Democrats.

True, but that's hardly such a significant combination given that Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are all equally or more likely to go Democrat than Ohio nowadays (maybe even Virginia could join that list...).

[GMantis]

This is the lowest 10-year growth of the US population since the 1930-1940 period and this was with a depression and much lower immigration than now.
It's also the lowest population growth of California, ever.

[opebo]

So, the Kerry states+Ohio can no longer win for the Democrats.

True, but that's hardly such a significant combination given that Iowa, New Mexico, Nevada, and Colorado are all equally or more likely to go Democrat than Ohio nowadays (maybe even Virginia could join that list...).

For example here's the 2008 map with a 3% swing from Democrat to Republican, with the new apportionment:

Obama still wins, though frightfully narrowly, but without Ohio.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Actually, he wins even without Virginia.

[Sbane]

So, the Kerry states+Ohio can no longer win for the Democrats.

Virginia and Colorado are more relevant as true swing states these days, while Ohio seems to have drifted right. Also New Mexico is lean Dem even with a tied pv in 2012.

[phk]

Wonder what the D's and R's bare minimum win is now.

I presume that D's is Kerry + OH + NM/IA.

R's not so sure.

[Tender Branson]

Can anyone make a % gain map?

Here are the maps:

[Tender Branson]

I just found out that the US population actually grew by 500.000 more than what was said in the official release.

Why ?

U.S. military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them overseas.

This number was much smaller in 2000 than it was in 2010, because the US was not engaged in 2 wars in 2000 like it is now.

Just take a look at this table here, which gives apportionment data for 2010 and 2000:

http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table1.xls

Apportionment population for 2010 was: 309.183.463

Then you have to add D.C. for a total population of 309.785.186

As you can see, in 2010 there were about 1.040.000 Americans overseas in the military.

For 2000, the number was just 574.000 (Apportionment population: 281.424.177+DC, for a total population of 281.996.236)

This means that roughly 500.000 Americans who were counted in the 2000 Census as "residents" where not counted this year because they have migrated overseas for military service.

[dpmapper]

Losers in 2020:

AL, IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA,

Possible:

NE, NJ, PA(2), RI, WV, WI

The small losers would be ranked WV, RI, NE in terms of likelihood of losing seats.

Gainers in 2020:

AZ, CO, FL, GA, NC, OR, TX(3)

Possible:

ID, UT, VA

It could end up based on whether ID surpasses NE in population (this is a necessary condition for ID to gain a seat, and NE to lose a seat, but it is not a sufficient condition).

Assuming growth rates are the same in the next 10 years as they were in the last 10 (big assumption, of course) I calculate:

Gains, in order of priority: NC, AZ, FL, NV, GA, TX (+3), VA, CO.  
possible gains: OR, NC+2, FL +2, ID, MT.  

Losses, in order of certainty: MI, PA, IL, RI, OH, MN, WV, NY (-2), CA.  
possible losses: MI (-2), AL, NE, MA, PA(-2).  

[Tender Branson]

I just found out that the US population actually grew by 500.000 more than what was said in the official release.

Why ?

U.S. military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them overseas.

This number was much smaller in 2000 than it was in 2010, because the US was not engaged in 2 wars in 2000 like it is now.

Just take a look at this table here, which gives apportionment data for 2010 and 2000:

http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table1.xls

Apportionment population for 2010 was: 309.183.463

Then you have to add D.C. for a total population of 309.785.186

As you can see, in 2010 there were about 1.040.000 Americans overseas in the military.

For 2000, the number was just 574.000 (Apportionment population: 281.424.177+DC, for a total population of 281.996.236)

This means that roughly 500.000 Americans who were counted in the 2000 Census as "residents" where not counted this year because they have migrated overseas for military service.

The apportionment population does not include any of D.C.'s data it seems, that's why I have to add the overseas population of D.C. to and then it sums up really well:

2010 Resident Population (incl. DC): 308.745.538
2010 Overseas Population (incl. DC): 1.042.523
2010 Total Population: 309.788.061

2010 Overseas population by state: http://2010.census.gov/news/pdf/apport2010_table3.pdf

2000 Resident Population (incl. DC): 281.421.906
2000 Overseas Population (incl. DC): 576.367
2000 Total Population: 281.998.273

2000 Overseas population by state: http://www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab03.pdf

...

Conclusion: A total of 466.156 people were counted in the 2000 Census that have not been counted this year because they went overseas for the Military.

Also: Texas has overtaken California as the state with most people overseas in the military.

[jimrtex]

Also for the first time since just about ever (if not literally for the first time ever?), the smallest state in the union, which is still Wyoming, won't be the smallest congressional district, as it now has more than half the population of the smallest multi-member state (Rhode Island). It's three EV's are still the cheapest though, of course.

I wrote a really long reply which was lost but it is not literally the first time ever, or even just about ever.

You may recall that the USA used D'Hondt apportionment under the original Jefferson-manders, which meant that the smallest states tended to have the largest population per representative.  

There were a few instances where a new state had the least population based on the previous census, but by the time of their accession they most likely would not have been the least populous state, and generally by their first census after statehood, they would have among the largest population/representative prior to the apportionment based on that senate,

It appears that the first post-census apportionment where a state had the smallest population per representative was 1860 when Oregon had been a state for one year.

1860: Oregon 52K vs Minnesota 86K/2

Nevada which was admitted in 1864 after the Comstock Lode soon dropped in population.  With it's extraordinary low population it assured that it would also have the least population/representative.  In one census it had 1/7 of the population of the largest state with a single representative.

1870: Nevada 42K, Oregon 90K vs Florida 93K/2
1880: Nevada 62K vs Florida 135K/2

In the 1872 reapportionment bill, there was a section specifying that no new state could be admitted with less population than the average population per representative.  This was ignored when Congress decided to add the 3 mountains states when Dakota and Washington became states.  Dakota was split in part for the same reason which was to bring in 6 Republican states.

1890: Nevada 47K, Wyoming 62K, Idaho 88K, Montana 142K vs. Oregon 158K/2

Wyoming joined Nevada as a lagging state.

1900: Nevada 42K, Wyoming 92K vs North Dakota 160K/2
1910: Nevada 81K, Wyoming 145K vs Idaho 163K/2
1920: Nevada 77K vs Vermont 176K/2 (1910 apportionment, 1920 population)
1930: Nevada 91K vs Idaho 222K/2
1940: Nevada 110K vs New Hampshire 246K/2

Completion of Boulder Dam during WWII, growth of California and interstate highway system, air conditioning and jet travel sparked growth of Las Vegas which finally meant that Nevada would no long be a laggard.  But noticed that in almost trebling in population between 1940 and 1960 it was still extremely underpopulated.

1950: Nevada 160K vs. New Hampshire 267K/2

Alaska accedes to Union to provide new ultra-small state.

1960: Alaska 226K, Nevada 285K vs New Hampshire 303K/2

Had North Dakota not dropped to 1 representative in 1970, Wyoming would have had more population per representative than North Dakota.

1970: Alaska 302K, Wyoming 332K vs South Dakota 333K/2

Healthy growth in Alaska and energy boom in Wyoming, mean that Montana has the fewest persons per representative as it slides towards loss of its 2nd representative.

1980: Alaska 402K, Wyoming 470K vs. Montana 393K/2

Slippage in Wyoming and loss of 2nd representative mean that Wyoming for the first time ever has the least population per representative.

1990: Wyoming 453K vs. Rhode Island 500K/2
2000: Wyoming 494K vs. Rhode Island 524K/2

Strong growth and stagnation in Rhode Island result in Wyoming no longer having the least population per representative.

2010: Wyoming 568K vs. Rhode Island 528K/2

In 1960 there were 10 states with 2 representatives.  Nevada and Utah have grown at a healthy rate, and will in 2020 or 2030 be joined by Idaho.  3 have lost their 2nd represantive, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Montana, and Rhode Island may join them in 2020.  This would leave only 3, 2-representative states, Maine, New Hampshire, and Hawaii, at least until Nebraska and West Virginia.  The last state to lose its 3rd representative was Maine in 1960.

If Rhode Island were to lose its 2nd seat in 2020, then Wyoming might once again become the smallest congressional district; since the gap to the next smallest 2-representative states, of New Hampshire and Maine is about 25%.

In fact a very notable anomaly is that Nebraska and West Virginia now have the smallest districts other than Rhode Island and Wyoming.  It is quite possible that in 2020 one of these two will have the smallest congressional districts.

[Skill and Chance]

Wonder what the D's and R's bare minimum win is now.

I presume that D's is Kerry + OH + NM/IA.

R's not so sure.

Numerically, you're correct on Kerry +OH+IA and Kerry IA+VA+NM works for exactly 270 for the D's.  Kerry +OH+NM is a tie.  Getting exactly 270 for the R's is more challenging and most plausible scenario I found was Bush 2004 +PA-FL-VA 

The closest possible wins going off of 2008 margins are Kerry  +NV+CO+IA+NM for a 272-266 D win and flip CO for a 275-263 R win with Bush 2004 -NM-NV-IA.

Does the lame duck House or the new House elect the new president if there is an EC tie?

[Sounder]

Strong showing by the income tax free states. 

Difficult to declare whether it is a symptom or a cause though.

The slowest growing income tax free states were the fastest growing states in their respective regions.   Slow growth states should consider dumping the income tax to attract growth and investment.

[Brittain33]

Strong showing by the income tax free states. 

Difficult to declare whether it is a symptom or a cause though.

The slowest growing income tax free states were the fastest growing states in their respective regions.   Slow growth states should consider dumping the income tax to attract growth and investment.

Massachusetts's economy is among the strongest in the country. We just don't have the land, or the willingness to build with density on that land, to accommodate population growth.

[Torie]

Strong showing by the income tax free states.  

Difficult to declare whether it is a symptom or a cause though.

The slowest growing income tax free states were the fastest growing states in their respective regions.   Slow growth states should consider dumping the income tax to attract growth and investment.

Massachusetts's economy is among the strongest in the country. We just don't have the land, or the willingness to build with density on that land, to accommodate population growth.

Yes, in that sense Mass was "smart." It has effectively forced out of the state the bulk of its working class, and become a rather upscale state in its Social Economic Status (SES).

Moreover, the state had, and may still have for all I know, high quality secondary educational institutions (particularly the Catholic schools), not to mention its host of splendid higher educational ones, so it was able to effect a substantial amount of upward mobility of its population, putting on steroids as it were the desire (attended by hard work and discipline, without which desire is a fantasy novel) of so many of those "ethnics" up there "better" themselves, and certainly their kids, in any event. Congrats to all.

[jimrtex]

A couple of interesting tidbits:

Maine remained ahead of New Hampshire in population, though estimates had shown it slipping behind.

Puerto Rico lost population?  Young people moving to the mainland?

[Tender Branson]

Here´s a chart I made of the overseas military population and their family members in the 2000 and 2010 Census and percentage growth:

[Smash255]

Wonder what the D's and R's bare minimum win is now.

I presume that D's is Kerry + OH + NM/IA.

R's not so sure.

Using 04 as your base its a gain of 6 seats for the ones Bush won, loss of 6 for Kerry so its 292-246 instead of 286-252.

R's is Bush 04 - CO,-  NV - IA - NM + NH, which would give them 270 (
Bush 04 - CO - IA - NV, would be 271
Bush 04-  CO - NM -IA/NV would be 272

Dems would be Kerry + OH, + NV/IA  which would be 270  (NM instead of NV or IA would be 269 but with NE-02 added you would have 270
Kerry 04 + NC + CO would also be 270
Kerry 04 + VA +NM +IA/NV also 270
Kerry 04 + VA  + IA + NV would be 271
Kerry 04 + FL would be 273

[minionofmidas]

I just found out that the US population actually grew by 500.000 more than what was said in the official release.

Why ?

U.S. military and federal civilian employees and their dependents living with them overseas.

This number was much smaller in 2000 than it was in 2010, because the US was not engaged in 2 wars in 2000 like it is now.

Just take a look at this table here, which gives apportionment data for 2010 and 2000:

http://2010.census.gov/news/xls/apport2010_table1.xls

Apportionment population for 2010 was: 309.183.463

Then you have to add D.C. for a total population of 309.785.186

As you can see, in 2010 there were about 1.040.000 Americans overseas in the military.

For 2000, the number was just 574.000 (Apportionment population: 281.424.177+DC, for a total population of 281.996.236)

This means that roughly 500.000 Americans who were counted in the 2000 Census as "residents" where not counted this year because they have migrated overseas for military service.

Ah, nice one.

Jim - yeah, I was thinking of "since 1870 on account of Nevada, if not before". So apparently 1980 wrecks my claim.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Where can I find a document with the official population numbers ? I didn't find it on the census website.

[danny]

Where can I find a document with the official population numbers ? I didn't find it on the census website.

On this page:

 http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/apportionment/apport.html