New Census Estimates for the States

[muon2]

The US Census Bureau released (link) its estimates for the populations of the states for July 1, 2004. This data can be used to project the apportionment for 2010.

For each state I have calculated an annual rate of growth based on the 4 1/4 years between the decennial cencus on April 1, 2000 and this new estimate. I assume growth rates based on an annual percentage increase which is uniform over the period. This is the same as a financial institution would use to calculate the growth rate of an investment.

The annual growth rate is then applied for 10 years with annual compounding to the decennial census counts. This results in a projected population for each state on April 1, 2010. With this projection, the average CD would have 712.6 K people.

The apportionment of representatives is calculated in the correct manner. Each state starts with 1 seat. The priority vaule used to assign each subsequent seat is taken as geometric mean of the average population per seat and the average population per seat if an additional seat were assigned. Seats are assigned until 435 seats are apportioned.

The last few seats assigned (and next few not assigned) are:

#431 TX 35
#432 PA 18
#433 MN 8
#434 AL 7
#435 MI 15

#436 CA 55
#437 NY 28
#438 IL 19
#439 FL 28
#440 LA 7

The result of this apportionment would be the following changes:

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

[CARLHAYDEN]

First, it must be noted that the trends can change over the next five plus years, but probably won't change much if any.

Second, of at least equal importance is the changes WITHIN states.

As I previously noted, in another thread, in California (to take one example) areas which actually lost population were highly likely to vote for Kerry, while areas which grew the fastest were highly likely to vote for Bush.

In Illinois, the areas gaining population at the fastest rate overwhelming likely to vote for Bush.

[A18]

But who are the new voters in those fast-growing areas voting for? They could all be Democrats in decreasingly Republican areas. The trend is what matters.

[CARLHAYDEN]

What appears to be happening is that people who are improving their lives are moving to the suburbs and exurbs from areas which were heavily Democrat.

In their previous area (in many instances) their only relevant vote was in the Democrat primary,

Once they moved, they would vote Republicans and actually see that candidate (in local elections) elected.

Also, the Democrat activists in the heavily growing areas tend to be loony lefties, which turn off the newly arrived inhabitants, who had previously been Democrats at their own residence.

[phk]

Where I live, reverse suburbanization is occuring. Ruralites moving to the Suburbs as opposed to City Folk.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's what I get

July 2004:
Arizona +1
Florida +1
Iowa -1
New York -1
Ohio -1
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +1
Utah +1

Total change through to 2010 census:
Arizona +1
California +1
Florida +2
Georgia +1
Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Missouri -1
Nevada +1
New York -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +3
Utah +1

[zorkpolitics]

A net +4 EV to the Bush states. 
Interestingly, OH no longer is essential for a GOP win.

If these numbers held up, for the 2012 election a GOP candidate who lost OH, but won the other Bush states, would have 272 EV.

[Alcon]

Nevada sure will be weirdly important in the future.

[12th Doctor]

I knew that California wouldn't grow at the rate that everyone was suggesting.

[12th Doctor]

A net +4 EV to the Bush states. 
Interestingly, OH no longer is essential for a GOP win.

If these numbers held up, for the 2012 election a GOP candidate who lost OH, but won the other Bush states, would have 272 EV.

Ohio was not essensial this year.  If we had spent all the resources that we had in Ohio on Wisconsin and Minnesota, we would have got the same result.

[Storebought]

I found an article saying that MA is actually losing population outright, not just Congressional districts. I have to go dig it up.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'm getting different results than you are for which states have seats 431 to 440.

#431  TX 35
#432  PA 18
#433  AL 7
#434  MN 8
#435  MI 15

#436  CA 55
#437  NY 28
#438  FL 28
#439  IL 19
#440  LA 7

But strangely enough I get the same overall result:

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

[muon2]

I'm getting different results than you are for which states have seats 431 to 440.

#431  TX 35
#432  PA 18
#433  AL 7
#434  MN 8
#435  MI 15

#436  CA 55
#437  NY 28
#438  FL 28
#439  IL 19
#440  LA 7

We can cross-check our projected populations to see where a difference might lie. I'll list the populations in the following order, 2000, 2004, 2010, rounded to nearest 1000 (which could be our difference):


TX: 20904, 22490, 24829
PA: 12301, 12407, 12552
MN: 4926, 5101, 5348
AL: 4461, 4530, 4625
MI: 9956, 10113, 10329
CA: 33930, 35894, 38723
NY: 19005, 19227, 19531
IL: 12439, 12714, 13096
FL: 16029, 17397, 19435
LA: 4480, 4516, 4565

Those final populations give rise to these priorities. The priority number is the geometric mean of the present CD pop and the CD population if an additional seat is added:

#431 TX 35: 719.8
#432 PA 18: 717.5
#433 MN 8: 714.6
#434 AL 7: 713.7
#435 MI 15: 712.8
#436 CA 55: 710.7
#437 NY 28: 710.4
#438 IL 19: 708.1
#439 FL 28: 706.9
#440 LA 7: 704.4

If you have equivalent values I can see if rounding or some other effect caused our relative switches of MN and AL, and IL and FL.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm getting different results than you are for which states have seats 431 to 440.

#431  TX 35
#432  PA 18
#433  AL 7
#434  MN 8
#435  MI 15

#436  CA 55
#437  NY 28
#438  FL 28
#439  IL 19
#440  LA 7

We can cross-check our projected populations to see where a difference might lie. I'll list the populations in the following order, 2000, 2004, 2010, rounded to nearest 1000 (which could be our difference):


TX: 20904, 22490, 24829
PA: 12301, 12407, 12552
MN: 4926, 5101, 5348
AL: 4461, 4530, 4625
MI: 9956, 10113, 10329
CA: 33930, 35894, 38723
NY: 19005, 19227, 19531
IL: 12439, 12714, 13096
FL: 16029, 17397, 19435
LA: 4480, 4516, 4565

Those final populations give rise to these priorities. The priority number is the geometric mean of the present CD pop and the CD population if an additional seat is added:

#431 TX 35: 719.8
#432 PA 18: 717.5
#433 MN 8: 714.6
#434 AL 7: 713.7
#435 MI 15: 712.8
#436 CA 55: 710.7
#437 NY 28: 710.4
#438 IL 19: 708.1
#439 FL 28: 706.9
#440 LA 7: 704.4

If you have equivalent values I can see if rounding or some other effect caused our relative switches of MN and AL, and IL and FL.

How do you get those 2000 population numbers?
The April 2000 Census and the July 2000 estimates are both different.

[muon2]

How do you get those 2000 population numbers?
The April 2000 Census and the July 2000 estimates are both different.

I used the official apportionment populations from the April 1, 2000 census.

www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.pdf

"The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and noncitizens) of the 50 states. In Census 2000, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated back to a home state."

"Question: Are the overseas population counts used for redistricting?
Answer: No, the overseas counts are used solely for reapportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The home state data for the overseas population do not meet the substate geographical precision required to conduct redistricting (i.e., blocks)."

The apportionment data will be higher than the block-level state data due to overseas population. Yet the overseas population must be considered to get the apportionment estimates for 2010. A next level of precision would be to base the estimated rate off the in-state population only, then apply the rate to the total base including overseas population.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How do you get those 2000 population numbers?
The April 2000 Census and the July 2000 estimates are both different.

I used the official apportionment populations from the April 1, 2000 census.

www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.pdf

"The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and noncitizens) of the 50 states. In Census 2000, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated back to a home state."

"Question: Are the overseas population counts used for redistricting?
Answer: No, the overseas counts are used solely for reapportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The home state data for the overseas population do not meet the substate geographical precision required to conduct redistricting (i.e., blocks)."

The apportionment data will be higher than the block-level state data due to overseas population. Yet the overseas population must be considered to get the apportionment estimates for 2010. A next level of precision would be to base the estimated rate off the in-state population only, then apply the rate to the total base including overseas population.

Oh, that probably explains why I had Utah getting that seat NC barely got in the 2000 census.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I wasn't using the apportionment population before, but even with correcting for that I'm still getting different results.

The states getting seats 431-440 remain unchanged, altho my pop numers are slightly different if I use the apportionment pop as my base pop instead of the estimate base pop as before.  I think we're using different multipliers.   Here's how I'm getting my number for each state:

1) Find the ratio between the July 1, 2004 estimate and the Apr 1, 2000 estimate base for that State.

2) Find the 17th root of that ratio to get the quarterly multiplier.

3) Raise that root to the 40th power to get the multiplier for 10 years (40 quarters).

4) Multiply that number by the base population to get an estimate for Apr 1, 2010.

[muon2]

I wasn't using the apportionment population before, but even with correcting for that I'm still getting different results.

The states getting seats 431-440 remain unchanged, altho my pop numers are slightly different if I use the apportionment pop as my base pop instead of the estimate base pop as before.  I think we're using different multipliers.   Here's how I'm getting my number for each state:

1) Find the ratio between the July 1, 2004 estimate and the Apr 1, 2000 estimate base for that State.

2) Find the 17th root of that ratio to get the quarterly multiplier.

3) Raise that root to the 40th power to get the multiplier for 10 years (40 quarters).

4) Multiply that number by the base population to get an estimate for Apr 1, 2010.

I suspect the difference is in our compounding periods. I use the rate function on the spreadsheet (like your steps 1 & 2), but I used 4.25 periods to represent an annual basis. I then used the future value function (like your steps 3 & 4), but I used 10 periods since the rate was annualized.

[Gustaf]

Doesn't really matter, we all knew the general trends. States that are gaining EVs and are lean-GOP are trending Dem (CO, NV, FL). Lean-GOP states that are losing are trending GOP (OH, IA). Still, some losses for Democrats. Ohio wasn't the closest to national averaga this time...a Democrat winning Ohio would most likely be winning Iowa and New Mexico as well.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Now let me see,

                    Republican Percentage of Presidential Vote

                                   Year

State          1992     1996     2000     2004     1992-2004

Colorado     35.87    45.80    50.75    51.71    +15.84

Florida         40.89    42.32    48.85    52.10    +11.21

Nevada        34.73    42.91    49.52    50.47    +15.74

Yeah, I see what you mean.

     

[Cashcow]

Strong Perot split + Weak Perot split + No Perot + Bush gain in national average.

That's a great way to only use statistics that benefit you.

[ilikeverin]

Strong Perot split + Weak Perot split + No Perot + Bush gain in national average.

That's a great way to only use statistics that benefit you.

He's very good at that

[CARLHAYDEN]

Please tell Boss Tweed about how all the Perot voters would have voted for Bush or Dole.

Note, I posted the percentages which can be easily seen at Dave's Election Results sites.

Facts are stubborn things.

Some posters (hmm) seem unable to deal with facts.

[Cashcow]

I agree. Some people just can't deal with the fact that all three are continually moving left of the national average.

[Alcon]

Please tell Boss Tweed about how all the Perot voters would have voted for Bush or Dole.

Note, I posted the percentages which can be easily seen at Dave's Election Results sites.

Facts are stubborn things.

Some posters (hmm) seem unable to deal with facts.

Dear Carlhayden,

No. You're wrong. They would not all be for Dole. That is ridiculous and you lack any facts to back yourself up. Facts are stubborn things when they do not specifically conform to what you want them to.

Love,

Alcon