Official US 2010 Census Results (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 05:23:40 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)
  Official US 2010 Census Results (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2
Author Topic: Official US 2010 Census Results  (Read 227430 times)
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« on: December 21, 2010, 01:03:45 PM »

So RI is not in danger (yet) and MT will likely lose out fairly narrowly for the third time in a row?

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).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #1 on: December 23, 2010, 10:47:27 AM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #2 on: December 23, 2010, 03:27:36 PM »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #3 on: December 24, 2010, 01:14:56 AM »

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?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #4 on: December 25, 2010, 03:51:34 PM »

I'm not sure if anyone here has pointed it out yet, but if the major fractions method (which was used after the 1910 and 1930 censuses) was still used today, Rhode Island would lose it's second U.S. House seat and North Carolina would gain a 14th U.S. House seat.
After the 1920 snafu, Congress under prodding from President Hoover agreed to automate the process, and specified that the president (or the census bureau on his behalf) would calculate the apportionment under both major fractions and equal proportions.  In 1930, both methods gave the same result.  In 1940, they gave different results, with equal proportions favoring Arkansas, and major fractions favoring Michigan.  The decision to use equal proportions was made on a party line vote, with all Democrats except from Michigan voting for equal proportions.

So if the decision were being made now, would the vote be for North Carolina a swing state in presidential elections, and where there is a reasonable chance of a Republican seat being drawn to avoid pushing a marginals into the Republican column, or for Rhode Island which is a certain Democratic presidential vote and representatives?

Would Speaker Pelosi tried to ram the bill through in the lame duck session?  Or would there be an effort to include representation for DC and RI (this assumes that Rhode Island is 436 in priority) while switching to major fractions.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #5 on: December 25, 2010, 06:52:20 PM »

Hmm? What is the major fractions method? I did a few calculations this morning, actually, though with rounded figures because I didn't have access to the internet, and I got Hare-Niemeyer and the US method agreeing this year. Sainte-Lague shifts two seats to larger states; I forget which but Rhode Island wasn't one IIRC. I also did D'Hondt (single seat not just for RI but for ME and NH as well... HI narrowly double-member. About ten or so seat transfers. Oh, and you have to amend it to include an exception so every state gets at least one seat), and the method used by Turkey (one seat per state automatic, remaining seats distributed by D'Hondt with that one seat not taken into account, which in Turkey has the nice effect of making every province/constitutency at least double-member. Similar number of seat transfers but in the other direction this time. SD the smallest double-member state).
Differences are relative to Huntington Hill

Jefferson's method

+ CA(2), IL, NJ, NY, NC, OH, TX
- ME, MN, NE, NH, RI, SC, WA, WV

Adams' method

+ DE, ID, IA, LA, MO, MT, OK, OR, SD
- CA(3), FL, GA, NY, PA, TX(2)

Webster's method

+ NC
- RI

Dean's method

+ MT
- CA
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #6 on: December 25, 2010, 10:04:54 PM »

This is the 2010 apportionment, based on each state's share of the total population. but assuming that share is the geometric mean of  x+1/2 and x-1/2, where x is the actual number of seats that a state is entitled to.

So for example, we divide Alabama's apportionment population of 4,802,982 by 710,767 which is the US apportionment population of 710,767, which gives a quotient of 6.757.  IOW, Alabama has 6.757 / 435 of the US population.

6.757 is the geometric mean of x+1/2 and x-1/2 or sqrt( (x+1/2)(x -1/2) ).

Solving for x = sqrt (6.757^2 +1/4) = 6.776 which would be Alabama's apportionment based on its share of the US population.
 
But if he add all these up, we find that we have apportioned a total of 436.838 seats.  So we adjust our original divisor upward to 713,769 which gives us an apportionment of 435.015, with Alabama being apportioned 6.748 seats.  Repeat another iteration using a divisor of  713,794, gives a total apportionment of 435.000 seats, and Alabama's apportionment of 6.747.

We could use independent rounding (rounding fractions greater than 1/2 upward) and each state would have it correct apportionment based on its relative share of the US population.

But in the case of 2010, this would leave us 5 seats short, as FL, WA, TX, CA, and MN would lose a seat.  The extra 5 seats are apportioned on the basis of the conventional ranking method (not shown here), which illustrates an interesting effect.  When there are extra seats to be apportioned, the ranking favors larger states, and disfavors smaller states.  The reason is that large states can spread their shortfall among a large number of districts.  So in this case California and Texas are favored, even though they are somewhat short of the population needed for 52.5 or 35.5 seats.  Montana is close, but if it did receive a 2nd seat they would be quit small.

It is happenstance that extra seats have to apportioned.  It could be the other way around and more than 435 seats apportioned based on independent rounding.  In that case large states would be disfavored.  We could take a district from them and the other districts would have fairly small increases.

In the following table, the first column is the 2010 fractional apportionment.  The second column is the change from 2000.  We can use this to make a rough projection to 2020 as to which states will gain and lose:

Winners:  AZ, CO(?maybe), FL, GA, ID(?), NV(?), OR(?), TX(+3), VA(1)

Losers: CA(?), IL, MI(1, 2?), MN, NE(?), OH, PA, RI, WV(?)

The 3rd column is the 2010 apportionment.  The 4th is the 2000-2010 relative increase or decrease in population.

The 5th and 6th column shows either the relative increase and absolute increase (in 1000s) for a state to take Minnesota's 8th representative, or relative decrease and absolute decrease for a state to forfeit a seat to North Carolina (Minnesota received the 435th seat, while North Carolina would have received a 436th were the House expanded).

The previous column can be combined.  So for example if Texas had grown at 20.5% rather than 20.9% it would have only gained 3 seats.  It also shows that it is now necessary for a state to have more than a million population before it gains a second seat (Montana has 994K and would need to gain 10K).


Alabama               6.747   -0.137   7    7.7%  -4.3%  -208
Alaska                1.128    0.038   1   14.7%  39.2%   283
Arizona               8.998    1.070   9   24.7%  -6.2%  -396
Arkansas              4.130   -0.025   4    9.2%   8.5%   250
California           52.317    0.090  53   10.1%  -0.3%  -118
Colorado              7.085    0.430   7   17.0%   5.4%   270
Connecticut           5.043   -0.229   5    5.0%   8.6%   308
Delaware              1.358    0.050   1   14.8%  11.5%   104
Florida              26.484    1.808  27   17.9%  -0.6%  -114
Georgia              13.637    0.995  14   18.5%  -1.7%  -162
Hawaii                1.979    0.041   2   12.3% -26.6%  -364
Idaho                 2.260    0.202   2   21.3%  10.6%   166
Illinois             18.029   -1.123  18    3.4%   2.1%   270
Indiana               9.122   -0.266   9    6.7%   3.6%   236
Iowa                  4.307   -0.233   4    4.2%   4.0%   122
Kansas                4.043   -0.133   4    6.3%  10.9%   312
Kentucky              6.116   -0.137   6    7.4%   5.8%   252
Louisiana             6.399   -0.514   6    1.6%   1.1%    49
Maine                 1.933   -0.096   2    4.3% -24.8%  -330
Maryland              8.127   -0.058   8    9.1%   4.1%   237
Massachusetts         9.203   -0.592   9    3.2%   2.7%   178
Michigan             13.895   -1.437  14   -0.4%  -3.5%  -346
Minnesota             7.463   -0.135   8    7.9%  -0.2%    -9
Mississippi           4.202   -0.217   4    4.4%   6.6%   198
Missouri              8.437   -0.207   8    7.2%   0.2%    15
Montana               1.480   -0.000   1    9.8%   1.0%    10
Nebraska              2.615   -0.073   3    6.8%  -5.2%   -95
Nevada                3.829    0.707   4   35.3%  -9.3%  -253
New Hampshire         1.918   -0.053   2    6.7% -24.1%  -319
New Jersey           12.349   -0.627  12    4.5%   0.7%    63
New Mexico            2.939    0.088   3   13.3% -16.0%  -330
New York             27.213   -2.043  27    2.2%   0.6%   107
North Carolina       13.411    0.983  13   18.6%   0.2%    16
North Dakota          1.071   -0.039   1    5.0%  48.6%   329
Ohio                 16.215   -1.300  16    1.7%   1.3%   145
Oklahoma              5.298   -0.049   5    8.8%   3.3%   125
Oregon                5.415    0.114   5   12.3%   1.1%    41
Pennsylvania         17.848   -1.091  18    3.5%  -2.6%  -331
Rhode Island          1.561   -0.131   2    0.5%  -5.0%   -52
South Carolina        6.528    0.313   7   15.4%  -1.1%   -51
South Dakota          1.253   -0.015   1    8.3%  22.5%   185
Tennessee             8.946    0.158   9   11.8%  -5.6%  -359
Texas                35.404    3.225  36   20.9%  -0.4%   -99
Utah                  3.914    0.435   4   23.9% -11.4%  -314
Vermont               1.015   -0.049   1    3.4%  59.3%   374
Virginia             11.272    0.331  11   13.2%   1.5%   122
Washington            9.474    0.366  10   14.3%  -0.4%   -27
West Virginia         2.653   -0.182   3    2.6%  -6.6%  -123
Wisconsin             7.999   -0.284   8    6.1%  -6.9%  -392
Wyoming               0.940    0.028   1   14.7%  76.7%   436

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #7 on: December 26, 2010, 01:03:07 PM »

RI is the only one.

The difference between Webster's method and Huntington-Hill are pretty minor except for the smallest states.  The square root of  5 * 6 is 5.47, vs the average of 5 and 6 which is 5.5.  But more important is the relative difference between the divisors.

sqrt (9 * 10 ) / sqrt (5 * 6) = 1.732
9.5 / 5.5 = 1.727

The ratio of the two numbers is 1.0027.  Which means that the two methods would make a difference in the relative ranking of an Washington-sized state and an Oregon-sized state only if the quotients were within 0.27% of each other.  And it would make a different in apportionment if they happened to just be at the cutoff line for the membership of the House.

If we use only the quotients that determine whether a state has N or N+1 seats in a 435-member House, while Rhode Island drops 12 places, the 12 states that followed it for the most part simply move up one position in the ranking.

The exceptions are that AL and MI move up two, but that is because NE, a small state, also drops down a couple of places; and TX and CA, the two largest states, move up two place past WA.

The quotient for the State that receives the Nth representative, should be very close to 1/Nth of the total population (the national average representatives/population).  So the expected difference is 1630, vs. the observed difference between NC and MO for Webster's method is slightly closer than expected.

Yeah, RI was one of my two Sainte Lague losers after all; I've checked. The other one (Minnesota; though who was the other gainer? New York probably but I'm not sure right now) may be a rounding issue.
The rounding made no difference to the Huntington/Hill method - it so happens that the gap between 435th and 436th was something of a mini natural break this year.

Seat #431: California 53 (nc)         Priority: 709,631
Seat #432: Florida 27 (+2)            Priority: 709,610
Seat #433: Washington 10 (+1)   Priority: 708,829
Seat #434: Minnesota 8 (nc)         Priority: 708,767
Seat #435: Texas 36 (+4)             Priority: 708,396
Seat #436: North Carolina 14 (+1)  Priority: 706,817
Seat #437: Missouri 9 (nc)               Priority: 705,802
Seat #438: New York 28 (-1)           Priority: 704,775
Seat #439: New Jersey 13 (nc)       Priority: 703,915

Biggest gap in the 431 to 439 run. (Much larger gaps just beyond, though.)
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #8 on: December 26, 2010, 09:27:23 PM »

What information will be released in the 2010 census that was not released in the 2000 census and visa versa?

Anybody know?
The 2000 census included only the short form which asked the following questions:

Number Persons in Household
Housing: Owned; Mortgaged; Rented; Squatting.

For each person:

Family relationship to person filling out form
Sex
Age
Hispanicity
Race

The information that was formerly collected by the long form, is now collected in the American Community Survey.

Housing: Type (house, apartment, cave, boat, etc.), age, length of tenancy, acreage, farm income, business use, number of rooms, number of bedrooms, running water, flush toilet, bathtub or shower, sink with faucet, stove or range, refrigerator, telephone, number of vehicles, heating fuel, cost of electricity, gas, water&sewer, and other fuel; food stamps, condominium (and fee), rent (and whether board included), value, taxes, insurance, mortgage payments,

Population: Citizenship, and basis thereof; entry into USA, attending school and level, highest level of education completed,  ancestry, language spoken at home, residence location 1 year earlier, health insurance, deaf, blind, physical disabilities, marital status, recent motherhood, caring for grandchildren, military service, employment, commuting, laid off, productive or government worker, income, social security.

The long form was distributed to a large sample of households (10% to 20%) and was intended to ask all the annoying questions that would have made census participation plummet if asked of everyone.  It was intended to be a large enough sample to provide statistically reliable information for small areas (down to the block group, which has around 1000 persons).

The American Community Survey is administered on an ongoing basis, with a much smaller sample each month, but which when aggregated over 5 years produces a comparable sample size and accuracy to the long form.  The Census Bureau earlier this month released the ACS data for 2005 to 2009.   The Census Bureau also releases ACS data on 3-year and 1-year basis for larger areas (3-year data is statistically reliable for areas with population greater than 20,000; and the 1-year data for areas with population greater than 65,000).

Because the data is collected on a continuing basis, next year the ACS will be released for 2006 to 2010, with the oldest year of the sample being dropped and a new year added in.  So the ACS will be better for trends, while the long form census data, while clearer and more concise because it all is for a single data, won't show changes between decades, and because of unlucky timing might even be misleading (a 2010 long form would show higher levels of unemployment, and more persons in their mid-20s living with their parents).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2011, 02:58:28 AM »

The Census Director is scheduled to hold a press conference at 1PM on Wednesday, January 12 to "brief the media on next 2010 Census data releases, including state redistricting data."  Will we get some lower-level data tomorrow afternoon?
I'd be really surprised, since it isn't expected until February for the earliest states.  The new version of American Fact Finder is supposed to go on line.  They have just released the 3-year (2007-2009) data from ACS for area with population more than 20,000, and have been rolling out the geography for the 2010 census (they have 32 states plus DC, done so far).
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2011, 02:54:46 PM »

We might get some more info on the exact timeline, though. That would be very welcome.

I tuned in to late for the press conference.  It says it is being archived.  Anyone catch it?
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #11 on: January 14, 2011, 02:25:48 AM »

The press conference transcript is here.  There's not much there there.  As we knew, the state redistricting data will trickle out by state starting the first week of February.  Census will tell us which states will be released next about a week ahead of time - so we'll start knowing by the end of January.  The release schedule is sensitive to state redistricting needs - so I'd imagine those with 2011 elections might come first, if they have to redistrict beforehand.   State officials will get the data before the rest of us, but we will get it at the same time as the press.

New Tiger shapefiles will be put up on Census' website soon.

There's going to be a webinar on the new American Factfinder on January 18 and on redistricting on January 24.

Oh sorry, cinyc, I did indeed misunderstand. When I am drawing my maps, I am obsessed with intra county migrations, which can matter a lot in bigger, and politically variegated counties. I don't want my maps to hit the dumpster because I didn't try to anticipate for that.

Yeah, my initial phrasing was misleading.  While it certainly wasn't clear from just the handouts, from the transcript, it sounds like the Census Bureau was using Pew and Heritage inter-state migration estimates, among other things, to try to judge the accuracy of the 2010 Census, which was in line with the mid-level population estimates.  Obviously, not everyone responds to the census, and in some cases, census workers had to ask proxies like neighbors or building management.   It also sounds like the full accuracy analysis won't be ready until 2012.  The final accuracy analysis for the 2000 census indicated a slight overcount.
New shapefiles are up for most states now.  It was something like 38 states a couple of days ago.

The first part of the conference was the census director explaining their preliminary evaluation of the 2010 Census.

The mail back rate was slightly higher in 2010 (74%) but that was because everyone got the short form.  The mail back rate for the short form in 2000 was also 74%, with the long form response rate dragging down the overall rate.  I'd guess that the long form took too much effort to complete, and some people would have decided it was too prying.

Of their effort to contact the remaining 26%, 22% was by contact with a building manager or neighbor (so 5.7% overall). vs. 17% in 2000.  But I'd speculate that this might not be too much worse than in 2000, because of the long form.  Some of the people who didn't turn in the long form, did so for other reasons than unwillingness to be contacted, moving, or working 3 jobs.  It was just too much hassle.  But it was easy to find them.

Overall contact rate, by mail, or followup with the household or a proxy was 99.60%, up from 99.57% in 2000.

They then compared the actual count with estimates.  One was based on birth and death data, and guesses about immigration.  They were within a couple 100,000 of the middle estimate, but off by 3 to 4 million on the outer estimates.  So that could just be luck.

The other was to compare their estimates, which are based on the 2000 census, then updated based on births, deaths, migration data.  They were within a few 100,000 on that as well.  Which could say that they are no worse than 2000.  If they had missed 5 million in 2000, their estimate for 2010 would also be off by 5 million or so, and if there count was as (in)accurate they would miss 5 million.

The 3rd party slides were really pretty goofy.  They were based on the ACS data, which includes information on previous residence (perhaps in the PUMS).  They showed a lot more people leaving Michigan than moving in, and the Census showed a population decline.  Texas showed a lot more people moving in than moving out, and the Census showed a 20% gain, plus 4 new seats.  And California showed more people moving out than moving in but not in the ratio of Michigan, and California showed a growth rate about the same as the US and no congressional seats.  There wasn't any analysis of whether the net migration was of the correct magnitude to match the census population.

Washington Post gets the award for most inane questions (plural).  One was whether the redistricting data would include data counts on same sex couples.  And the second was whether in light of the shooting in Tucson, the Census Bureau had beefed up its security.

Amusing moment was when the census director Robert Groves said that the 3-year (2007-9) ACS data would be released later this month.  Someone interjected, "yesterday".  Groves then said that the 3-year (2007-9) ACS data had been released earlier this month.

Most of the press questions were about when would they be able to write an article with little research and little substance about the population in their area with a few quotes of reaction from a government official or demographer at the local university, and would the press get to see the data before the public.  Groves said that the data would be released to the public (and press) via American Factfinder.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #12 on: January 30, 2011, 02:30:29 AM »

Media Advisory — Census Bureau to Release Local 2010 Census Data for Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey and Virginia
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #13 on: January 30, 2011, 02:37:47 AM »


It will even out
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #14 on: January 30, 2011, 02:54:01 AM »

Illinois will probably be next.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #15 on: January 30, 2011, 04:11:14 PM »

I seem to dimly recall they went in alphabetical order last time.
No, because Texas had a March state primary in 2002, with a filing deadline in very early January, which meant the district boundaries had to be in place rather early.  Another consideration is when the legislature or other redistricting body meets.  For example, in Texas, if the legislature fails to redistrict the legislature, the task transfers to the Legislative Redistricting Board.  So if there is no legislative map by early May, there won't be a map drawn by the legislature.

For congressional districts, there is some flexibility since it would be possible to call a special session (though it is not particularly desirable for federal bureaucrats to be forcing legislative meetings).  In 2001, the federal court determined the date when district boundaries had to be established, and how long it would take them to draw districts, and took jurisdiction based on that.

I figured your odd choice of words meant that you knew which states had odd-year legislative elections.  In the case of Louisiana and Mississippi, the legislature is elected for (coincident) 4-year terms, so if they don't redistrict now, the new boundaries would not go into effect until 2015, more than half way through the census decade.  In 2001, they might not have had a similar priority, since their legislative elections were in 2003.  And because Louisiana didn't have a congressional primary at that time, it might have had the very latest filing deadline of any state.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #16 on: February 02, 2011, 04:33:35 PM »

Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, and Maryland will be released next week.

It probably takes more effort to do larger states, and perhaps there are not tasks than can easily be done in parallel (eg. you could have one team do one medium sized state and then another, while another toils away on Illinois or Texas).

Also the Census Bureau has released its 2010 estimates for state populations based on the 2000 census.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #17 on: February 02, 2011, 06:23:40 PM »

Data was shipped to the legislative leaders in Louisiana, Mississippi, New Jersey, and Virginia.  As soon as they acknowledge receipt (probably tomorrow) the census bureau will release summary tables:

Top 20 counties and cities by population.

Racial breakdown for state (all persons and over 18)

Hispanic + racial breakdown for non-Hispanics (all person and over 18)

Racial breakdown for persons reporting two races

Hispanic + racial breakdown for non-Hispanics for 20 most populous counties and cities.

So you will see these in newspapers on Friday.

FTP release will also happen tomorrow, and data will be available on American Fact Finder, the day after.  PS if you have not used the new American Fact Finder, click on help and watch a couple of tutorials - otherwise it is pretty unexplicable.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #18 on: February 03, 2011, 06:18:47 PM »

This is a comparison of the 2010 Census Population to census bureau estimates of the 2010 population based on the 2000 Census adjusted for births, deaths, and migration.

I based the estimate on a linear interpolation of the July 1, 2009 and July 1, 2010 estimates, to April 1, 2010.  The Census Bureau also produced an April 1, 2010 estimate, but the differences are negligible.

They really missed on Hawaii, which seems kind of odd, since you would think they would have a better handle on migration.  North Dakota and Wyoming are both off considerably.  This may be due the late-decade oil boomlet which may not show up as migration yet since it is based on tax returns.


State                  Census    Error    Estimate
Alabama              4,779,736   1.012   4,724,116
Alaska                 710,231   1.007     705,319
Arizona              6,392,017   0.961   6,654,384
Arkansas             2,915,918   1.004   2,904,510
California          37,253,956   1.002  37,171,854
Colorado             5,029,196   0.991   5,075,271
Connecticut          3,574,097   1.014   3,523,909
Delaware               897,934   1.009     889,629
District of Columbia   601,723   0.990     607,936
Florida             18,801,310   1.009  18,636,021
Georgia              9,687,653   0.980   9,884,665
Hawaii               1,360,301   1.049   1,297,136
Idaho                1,567,582   1.007   1,555,963
Illinois            12,830,632   0.992  12,931,627
Indiana              6,483,802   1.007   6,438,290
Iowa                 3,046,355   1.009   3,019,394
Kansas               2,853,118   1.006   2,835,198
Kentucky             4,339,367   1.002   4,332,643
Louisiana            4,533,372   1.003   4,519,442
Maine                1,328,361   1.011   1,313,677
Maryland             5,773,552   1.008   5,725,055
Massachusetts        6,547,629   0.989   6,621,511
Michigan             9,883,640   0.995   9,937,241
Minnesota            5,303,925   1.004   5,283,541
Mississippi          2,967,297   1.003   2,957,836
Missouri             5,988,927   0.997   6,004,364
Montana                989,415   1.011     978,655
Nebraska             1,826,341   1.011   1,807,017
Nevada               2,700,551   1.019   2,650,710
New Hampshire        1,316,470   0.995   1,323,194
New Jersey           8,791,894   1.008   8,723,039
New Mexico           2,059,179   1.016   2,027,235
New York            19,378,102   0.991  19,563,951
North Carolina       9,535,483   1.011   9,433,443
North Dakota           672,591   1.032     651,809
Ohio                11,536,504   1.000  11,532,048
Oklahoma             3,751,351   1.010   3,714,745
Oregon               3,831,074   0.996   3,847,417
Pennsylvania        12,702,379   1.006  12,625,113
Rhode Island         1,052,567   0.996   1,057,015
South Carolina       4,625,364   1.009   4,586,283
South Dakota           814,180   0.996     817,761
Tennessee            6,346,105   1.003   6,326,389
Texas               25,145,561   1.002  25,102,747
Utah                 2,763,885   0.981   2,818,283
Vermont                625,741   1.006     622,184
Virginia             8,001,024   1.009   7,929,709
Washington           6,724,540   1.000   6,727,549
West Virginia        1,852,994   1.016   1,824,457
Wisconsin            5,686,986   1.004   5,664,077
Wyoming                563,626   1.031     546,826
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #19 on: February 03, 2011, 06:20:09 PM »

Arkansas, Indiana, Iowa, and Maryland will be released next week.

Add Vermont to this list for week of February 7 to 11.

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #20 on: February 03, 2011, 08:27:22 PM »


The numbers for the first 4 states are out, but, of course they released the data in some horrible format I couldn't figure out how to use, so I'm looking here: http://twitter.com/Redistrict for important news. Some interesting stuff so far.

2010 Census News

If you click on a news release for a state, it includes links to thematic maps for population and population change per county, and an Excel file with some highlight data, including top 20 counties and cities.

Louisiana: NOLA lost 29% of its population.

Mississippi: Southaven is now 3rd most populous city in Mississippi.

New Jersey: All counties in New Jersey, except Essex and Cape May gained population.  Asians now make up 8.2% of the population, up from 5.7% in 2000.

Virginia: High growth area extends from just past Fairfax to Charlottesville and Richmond.  Hispanics make up 7.9% of population, up from 4.7% in 2000, with 20% in Prince William County, and 31% in Manassas (Corrida de Toros).


The FTP files are ASCII text files, but they are huge - one record per geographic unit, which goes down to the block level, and include 63 racial combinations.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #21 on: February 04, 2011, 06:20:44 PM »

County Growth 2010 Census
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #22 on: February 09, 2011, 08:54:52 PM »

Illinois, Texas, Oklahoma, and South Dakota ship next week.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2011, 06:20:57 AM »

So everything will still be covered, just in different format or different times? I had heard a while back that there would not be ancestry asked this decade. Yes or no?
Only in the ACS (and it appears that they need the 5-year estimate to get sufficient data for ancestry).  For the 2005-2009 ACS, the top 50 congressional districts by percentage of Irish first ancestry.

Massachusetts 10    26.4%
Massachusetts 9     25.8%
Pennsylvania 7      22.3%
Massachusetts 6     19.3%
Pennsylvania 13     18.8%
Pennsylvania 8      18.4%
Massachusetts 7     17.3%
New York 1          16.8%
New York 3          16.8%
Massachusetts 5     16.1%
New York 19         15.8%
Massachusetts 3     15.7%
New York 20         15.5%
New Jersey 3        15.3%
New Jersey 1        15.3%
New Hampshire 1     15.2%
New York 21         14.7%
New Jersey 5        14.2%
Massachusetts 1     13.9%
Rhode Island 2      13.9%
New Jersey 4        13.9%
New Hampshire 2     13.7%
New York 25         13.7%
Massachusetts 4     13.4%
Connecticut 2       13.3%
Pennsylvania 11     13.3%
Massachusetts 2     13.1%
New York 22         12.9%
New Jersey 2        12.9%
New York 29         12.9%
New Jersey 11       12.8%
New York 24         12.8%
Maryland 1          12.5%
Delaware AL         12.5%
Pennsylvania 6      12.5%
New York 23         12.3%
Maine 1             12.3%
Ohio 10             12.1%
Pennsylvania 18     12.1%
Illinois 3          12.0%
Rhode Island 1      11.8%
New York 27         11.8%
Vermont AL          11.7%
Connecticut 5       11.7%
New York 2          11.7%
Connecticut 3       11.4%
Illinois 13         11.3%
Pennsylvania 10     11.3%
Missouri 2          11.2%
Kentucky 4          11.1%


Top Irish CD by State:

Alabama 4            9.9%
Alaska AL            7.6%
Arizona 8            8.3%
Arkansas 3           9.1%
California 6         9.4%
Colorado 6           9.2%
Connecticut 2       13.3%
Delaware AL         12.5%
Florida 10          10.9%
Georgia 9            9.0%
Hawaii 2             3.6%
Idaho 1              7.3%
Illinois 3          12.0%
Indiana 5            8.8%
Iowa 2               9.4%
Kansas 3             9.4%
Kentucky 4          11.1%
Louisiana 1          7.4%
Maine 1             12.3%
Maryland 1          12.5%
Massachusetts 10    26.4%
Michigan 8           8.7%
Minnesota 4          8.2%
Mississippi 1        9.3%
Missouri 2          11.2%
Montana AL          10.0%
Nebraska 2           9.9%
Nevada 2             7.9%
New Hampshire 1     15.2%
New Jersey 3        15.3%
New Mexico 1         5.2%
New York 1          16.8%
North Carolina 11    9.0%
North Dakota AL      3.9%
Ohio 10             12.1%
Oklahoma 3           8.7%
Oregon 4             8.3%
Pennsylvania 7      22.3%
Rhode Island 2      13.9%
South Carolina 3     7.8%
South Dakota AL      5.9%
Tennessee 7          8.9%
Texas 4              8.5%
Utah 2               4.4%
Vermont AL          11.7%
Virginia 10          8.4%
Washington 5         8.9%
West Virginia 3     10.5%
Wisconsin 2          7.6%
Wyoming AL           8.8%

Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2011, 10:40:53 PM »

Is there a schedule anywhere? I want Washington data! Sad

http://2010.census.gov/news/press-kits/redistricting.html
Logged
Pages: [1] 2  
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 0.08 seconds with 12 queries.