Census population estimates 2011-2019

[jimrtex]

The first column is the fractional entitlement for 2010, the second column for 2020, and the 3rd column the difference between the two. That is, Alabama has lost about 0.299 of a representative between 2010 and 2020. States with a negative change are growing slower than the United States as a whole. Those with a positive change are growing faster (increasing their representational share). The fourth and fifth columns show the projected 2020 apportionment, and  the change from 2010.

The next column is the change (in 1000s) for a state not being rounded, to get an additional seat. That is, if Alabama were to gain an additional 20K persons beyond what it is projected by 2020, it would retain its 7th seat. For a state that is rounded, it is the decrease needed to cause the lost of rounding. The next column is the projected change (in 1000s). Alabama is projected to add 152K between 2010 and 2020. The next column is the annualized growth rate projected between 2010 and 2020. The final column is the annualized growth rate needed over the remainder of the decade to cause a change in projected apportionment. Alabama is projected to increase at a 0.31% annual rate. If it were to gain at a 0.40% rate for the remainder of the decade it would retain the 7th seat.

States with some uncertainty are in red.


State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Alaska             1.117   1.114  -0.003   1   =     316      55   0.74%   8.34%
Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
Arkansas           4.129   3.982  -0.147   4   =    -397     120   0.40%  -2.52%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Colorado           7.087   7.662   0.575   8  +1    -174     845   1.57%   0.92%
Connecticut        5.049   4.720  -0.329   5   =    -200      32   0.09%  -1.10%
Delaware           1.358   1.384   0.026   1   =      89      94   1.00%   2.84%
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Georgia           13.627  13.957   0.330  14   =    -441    1029   1.01%   0.13%
Hawaii             1.976   2.014   0.038   2   =     372     139   0.98%   5.80%
Idaho              2.260   2.317   0.057   2   =     133     170   1.04%   2.62%
Illinois          18.043  16.779  -1.263  17  -1    -324      56   0.04%  -0.49%
Indiana            9.128   8.793  -0.335   9   =    -282     261   0.40%  -0.50%
Iowa               4.312   4.189  -0.123   4   =     222     148   0.48%   1.90%
Kansas             4.042   3.892  -0.150   4   =    -327     113   0.39%  -2.05%
Kentucky           6.120   5.883  -0.237   6   =    -332     165   0.37%  -1.23%
Louisiana          6.392   6.265  -0.127   6   =     153     265   0.57%   1.24%
Maine              1.933   1.802  -0.131   2   =    -253       2   0.01%  -4.33%
Maryland           8.131   8.117  -0.014   8   =     258     452   0.76%   1.62%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.158  -0.060   9   =     222     478   0.71%   1.37%
Michigan          13.902  12.970  -0.932  13  -1    -444      74   0.07%  -0.88%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Mississippi        4.201   3.956  -0.245   4   =    -377      48   0.16%  -2.61%
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.387   8   =     312     182   0.30%   1.35%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
Nebraska           2.615   2.602  -0.014   3   =     -96     135   0.72%  -0.34%
Nevada             3.829   4.033   0.204   4   =     342     374   1.31%   3.58%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.819  -0.098   2   =    -266      27   0.20%  -4.35%
New Jersey        12.369  11.869  -0.500  12   =    -360     319   0.36%  -0.49%
New Mexico         2.937   2.790  -0.148   3   =    -243      50   0.24%  -2.31%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
North Carolina    13.413  13.707   0.294  14  +1    -249     990   0.99%   0.48%
North Dakota       1.070   1.205   0.135   1   =     238     170   2.28%   7.78%
Ohio              16.224  15.214  -1.010  15  -1     153     147   0.13%   0.40%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.310   0.013   5   =     123     311   0.80%   1.43%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.789  -1.074  17  -1    -331     191   0.15%  -0.40%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
South Carolina     6.521   6.728   0.207   7   =    -218     529   1.09%   0.17%
South Dakota       1.249   1.274   0.025   1   =     180      86   1.01%   4.96%
Tennessee          8.935   8.915  -0.020   9   =    -376     493   0.75%  -0.44%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%
Utah               3.917   4.224   0.307   4   =     194     459   1.55%   2.81%
Vermont            1.012   0.956  -0.055   1   =     454       1   0.01%  12.18%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
Washington         9.466   9.903   0.437  10   =    -373     875   1.23%   0.16%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.629  -0.381   8   =    -149     162   0.28%  -0.26%
Wyoming            0.937   0.935  -0.002   1   =     473      44   0.75%  13.74%


Alabama has added an estimated 79K population, and is projected to add 73K more by 2020. If they were to add another 20K, they would retain the 7th district (because rounding of the final seats is based on a ranking of the states, there is also additional uncertainty).

Arizona was a very solid 9 districts in 2010, and is projected to gain a 10th on a favorable rounding. But if its projected increase of 856K were reduced by 22K to 834K, it would lose the 10th seat. On the other hand, Arizona has been increasing its population rate following recovery from the housing bubble.

California has been getting favorable rounding for the past few decades. If its projected increase of 3684K were to drop a bit, the rounding for 2020 would be lost, but California would actually earn its 53rd seat. Because of its large delegation California needs to add 3 million people just to tread water (the average district size will increase by nearly 60K this decade).

Florida would only need 73K additional population to gain a second seat. Based on an uptick over the past couple of years, this might almost be regarded as a certainty.

Minnesota could still avoid the loss of a district. It added 186K in the first 5.25 years, and is projected to add 173K more. If it could add another 54K it could keep the 7th seat.. However, Minnesota has had a slower growth the last couple of years.

Montana has been ever so close for ever so long (it sued over its loss of the second seat after the 1990 Census). Montana would only need to add another 7K persons beyond its projected increase of 85K. But in a state that has been adding 8K or so per year, another 7K is a lot.

New York could keep its 26th seat, but its growth has been declining the last couple of years.

Oregon really bumped up its growth for 2015 (57K versus 34K average for the first four years). If it were to drop back down, it might lose the 6th seat.

Rhode Island is only projected to gain 7K for the decade. To increase this to 28K is huge. Montana will likely equal Rhode Island's population by 2018.

Texas has been adding between 400K and 500K per year. A drop to around 350K per year is not out of the range of possibility if the oil price continue below $40/barrel, which would cause a loss of the 3rd additional seat.

Virginia is just short of the projected population for a 12th district. But its growth has been tapering off. If it doesn't add a district, the other districts will continue to be sucked into NOVA. Othewise a 4th district in the NOVA area would push the other districts back some.

West Virginia is estimated to have lost 9K by 2015, and lose another 8K by 2020. To convert this into an 18K increase for the decade would require a huge turn around.

[Tender Branson]

Any reason why Hawaii has a net negative domestic migration ?

I always thought HI is a magnet for mainland Americans to move to and retire or buy property, but it actually seems way more Americans are leaving HI for the mainland ...

[Asian Nazi]

Any reason why Hawaii has a net negative domestic migration ?

I always thought HI is a magnet for mainland Americans to move to and retire or buy property, but it actually seems way more Americans are leaving HI for the mainland ...

Due to high cost of living and limited job opportunities, lots of younger locals move to the mainland.  My family is an example of this.

It could also have to do with the military.

[Hillary pays minimum wage]

I've devoted my life to opposing statistics in many respects, but I have to take my hat off and admit that you found something interesting.

[hopper]

States with some uncertainty are in red.



Minnesota could still avoid the loss of a district. It added 186K in the first 5.25 years, and is projected to add 173K more. If it could add another 54K it could keep the 7th seat.. However, Minnesota has had a slower growth the last couple of years.

New York could keep its 26th seat, but its growth has been declining the last couple of years.


Virginia is just short of the projected population for a 12th district. But its growth has been tapering off. If it doesn't add a district, the other districts will continue to be sucked into NOVA. Othewise a 4th district in the NOVA area would push the other districts back some.

Yeah I thought the battle between losing a seat would be between New York and Minnesota but it looks like they are both gonna lose seats.

So if Virginia doesn't gain a seat who loses in redistricting? Comstock or Wittman on the Republican Side or maybe Conolly's district turns into a swing seat again? I was looking at the current Virginia Congressional Map and it doesn't look like Brat will be redistricted out. His district is to far off the Washington DC path. Beyer's district is too D for him to be redistricted out.

[Kevinstat]

State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%
Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%

Based on your table, which I've altered to get rid of the states you didn't have in red, change red to green for the states that might end up better than your predicting (as opposed to worse, although maybe California could (by your mathematical standard) also be within range of gaining a 2nd seat (doing 1 better than your projection) or losing a seat (doing 2 worse than your projection)), and to put all the states in red after all those in green, you have 12 states competing for 4 seats, although as you pointed out some of the states I just put in green really don't have much chance of having a result other than your projected one.

[jimrtex]

Edit: "New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one."

State               2010    2020  Change Apportion  More   Change  Proj.   Needed
Florida           26.435  28.245   1.810  28  +1      73    2896   1.44%   1.51%
Virginia          11.258  11.392   0.134  11   =      34     743   0.89%   0.97%
Montana            1.478   1.485   0.007   1   =       7      85   0.82%   0.95%
New York          27.244  26.271  -0.973  26  -1      62     803   0.41%   0.47%
Alabama            6.737   6.438  -0.299   6  -1      20     152   0.31%   0.40%
Minnesota          7.472   7.388  -0.085   7  -1      54     359   0.66%   0.86%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      21       7   0.07%   0.48%
West Virginia      2.652   2.441  -0.211   2  -1      35     -17  -0.09%   0.31%

Arizona            8.999   9.447   0.448  10  +1     -22     856   1.26%   1.20%
California        52.369  53.283   0.914  54  +1    -189    3684   0.95%   0.85%
Texas             35.350  38.730   3.381  39  +3    -433    4610   1.70%   1.38%
Oregon             5.408   5.511   0.103   6  +1     -45     386   0.96%   0.74%

Based on your table, which I've altered to get rid of the states you didn't have in red, change red to green for the states that might end up better than your predicting (as opposed to worse, although maybe California could (by your mathematical standard) also be within range of gaining a 2nd seat (doing 1 better than your projection) or losing a seat (doing 2 worse than your projection)), and to put all the states in red after all those in green, you have 12 states competing for 4 seats, although as you pointed out some of the states I just put in green really don't have much chance of having a result other than your projected one.

Thanks.

I have reordered the states based on the ratio of the needed growth rate vs. projected growth rate. For example, Florida would need to increase its growth rate from 1.44% to 1.51% to gain a second seat. The green states are ordered by most likely to do better. This ignores dynamic effects. For example, the growth rate in Florida has been increasing as a resulted of the recovery from the housing bubble. So it is actually quite likely to gain an additional seat. The growth rate has been declining in New York and Virginia, so their projections (loss of one for New York, no change for Virginia) are becoming more reliable.

While Arizona would appear to be the most vulnerable, its growth has also been recovering. California may be the most vulnerable. For the past two census, rounding has been favorable for larger states, and this may disappear. It depends on the overall distribution of state population, and the apportionment method does not systematically favor larger states.

Based on back of the envelope calculations:

With 53 districts, California gains an additional district with about a 2% gain. Over the 5 remaining years of the decade, this is annual increase of about 0.40%. So California would be around gaining a 55th district if it upped its increase to 1.25% per year, or could lose as seat if it were to drop to 0.45%.

For Texas, 1/36 is about 3%, or 0.6% for the remaining 5 years until the census. If the growth rate increased to 1.98% per year it would be in line for gaining 4 seats. This indicates that Texas is about as close to gaining 4 seats, as it as gaining 2.

For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two.

[DINGO Joe]

I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?

[Tender Branson]

I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?

Old estimates are always revised when the new numbers come out.

Also, after each 10-year Census the intercensal estimates are revised based on the new Census numbers.

[jimrtex]

I just realized that the 2014 estimates were slightly different for the states.  Did the revision occur with the release of the 2015 estimates, or was there some sort of interim revision?

This is normal.

Based on a quick read of Population Estimate Metodology (PDF), the difference may be due to lagging of reporting of vital statistics (birth and deaths).

They don't have any data for 2015, and only national data for 2014. So the 2015 estimates assume the same birth and death rate for 2015 as 2014, and there is also an adjustment for the lag in state and county reporting.

Next year, when making the 2016 estimates, they will have 2015 national vital statistics and 2014 state and local data. This means they will be able to improve the 2014 and 2015 estimates as well as making the 2016 estimates.

[Sol]

When Maryland gain a district?

[Brittain33]

When Maryland gain a district?

According to Jim's table, it's trending very slightly downward.

[jimrtex]

When Maryland gain a district?

When it is realized that the best solution for federal representation for the District of Columbia is to have residents vote with Maryland.

[Torie]

"For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing two. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two."

Based on the above, it appears to me that NY is quite solid to lose one, and only one, seat. What am I missing? Your figures represent pretty substantial changes in growth rates, and my impression is that the 9 upstate seats are pretty stable at having no growth up or down, thereby requiring a higher change in the NYC metro area to make a difference. I guess maybe NY could lose two seats, if Wall Street takes another rather long enduring dump.

[jimrtex]

"For New York, 1/27 is about 4%, or 0.8% for the remaining 5 years until 2020. It would need to increase to 1.27% per year to gain a seat, or decline by 0.33% per year to lose two seats. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing two. Similarly Florida is quite solid at gaining either one or two."

Based on the above, it appears to me that NY is quite solid to lose one, and only one, seat. What am I missing? Your figures represent pretty substantial changes in growth rates, and my impression is that the 9 upstate seats are pretty stable at having no growth up or down, thereby requiring a higher change in the NYC metro area to make a difference. I guess maybe NY could lose two seats, if Wall Street takes another rather long enduring dump.

I miswrote. New York is quite solid at either no change or losing one.

Losing two would require New York to start losing population (50,000 or so per year). Gaining one, would require a substantial increase in population.

New York is projected to increase by 803K. If it could increase by 62K more, it would be in position to not lose a seat. Prior to this year, New York was projected to not lose a seat, but its growth rate has slowed a bit. Since the 2020 projection is based on an assumption that the 2010-2015 growth rate will be maintained, it is optimistic.

One reason that it is difficult to project apportionment is it is based on a competition among the states.

Imagine that it were a marathon, and New York were on a pace for a 3:43 finish. We would look at past results and say that would be good for 438th place. We might also say that the average spacing was 21 seconds per place.

But when we are at the finish line in this race, the runners are not going to be spread out at 21 second intervals. And even if New York finishes at 3:43 it might get 435th. And this is without even considering changes in pace over the remainder of the race.

[Torie]

OK, thanks. Giving the the nine upstate NY CD's are so stably stagnant, NYC metro growth would have to increase by a pretty brisk rate to avoid losing a seat, putting aside your footrace comment. Any NY growth slowed down this last year didn't it, suggesting NYC metro area growth is slowing down, which makes sense given Wall Street is slowing down, and now slowing down some more.

[Torie]

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

[muon2]

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.

[Torie]

If the growth rates for each state over the past two years, continue at that rate for the balance of the census period, what would be the CD allocation for each state? That might be an interesting projection.

I looked at that when the numbers came out. Compared to the five-year data the only change I project is that CA stays the same and FL gets +2 instead of +1. AZ 10 was the last seat in that projection and CA 54 is the next.

It looks like in NY, if the same slow growth of the last two years persists until the end of the census cycle, and the population of the 9 upstate CD's stays the same, that NY-18 just takes Columbia County (still about 7,000 short, but that can be fudged), with a pack penalty incurred, while NY-17 retains Sullivan County.

[hopper]

In addition to FL breaking 20 million, let's see how my estimates turned out:

AZ will overtake MA. TRUE

TN could overtake IN, but probably not this year but next. TRUE (next year)

SC will overtake AL. TRUE


MS and AR might break 3 Mio. people for the first time (but it's more likely that UT does before them). Semi-true: MS and AR did not break 3 million, but UT overtook them with 2.996 million and definitely is above 3 million already.

NH could pass ME. TRUE

[quote]Yes NH passed ME.

Other states that can pass each other in population:

Colorado should pass Minnesota in population next year for the 21st largest state in population.

AR will come close to passing MS in population next year but I think will just miss.

On a side note I wonder how much population is Illinois's is gonna lose given they lost 23,000 people last year in natural population in the last 2 census cycles going from 12.859 million people  this year to 12.882 people last year and from 12.889 people from the year before in 2013. Illinois is now back to the population that it had in 2011 with 12.681 million people.

[Tender Branson]

New mid-2016 population estimates are out next Tuesday for the US, the states, DC and Puerto Rico as well as the voting-age estimates for each state and demographic changes over the past year (births, deaths, migration balances - which includes international and domestic migration estimates for each state).

Something to look at:

* CO will overtake MN in terms of total population
* PA could overtake IL, but that's very unlikely (more likely in 2017)
* NJ could hit 9 million (also unlikely => 2017)
* TN will overtake IN's population
* UT will definitely pass the 3 million
* AR could hit 3 million too (but much more likely that it will be in 2017)
* NV will overtake KS

---

* TX will remain the state with the biggest numerical gain (+450k)
* FL and CA will follow with +350k each
* WA might actually become the 4th fastest growing state numerically
* GA and NC still have steady high growth (+130K each)
* CO and AZ will be around +100K each
* OR probably picked up some speed (+70K)
* The 10th slot will go to SC (+65K)

---

In terms of % growth, a couple states will match themselves for 1st place because I guess ND's growth will fall back a bit to 1.5%

CO, NV, FL, UT, TX and DC are likely to grow between 1.7 and 2% each.

Hard to say who comes out on top ...

---

In general, births in the US dropped by 1% last year while deaths increased by 3.5% - resulting in a lower natural increase.

The big unknown is the immigration balance.

In general I believe the US population is up a bit less than last year (2.45 million vs. 2.51 million), but if the migration surplus was higher that could also change.

[Tender Branson]

My estimates for the TOP-10 states:

CA: 39.52 million (+380k) +1.0%
TX: 27.98 million (+510k) +1.8%
FL: 20.65 million (+380k) +1.8%
NY: 19.84 million (+ 45k) +0.2%
IL: 12.83 million  (- 30k) -0.2%
PA: 12.82 million  (+12k) +0.1%
OH: 11.63 million (+16k) +0.1%
GA: 10.35 million (+135k) +1.3%
NC: 10.16 million (+117k) +1.1%

[jimrtex]

New mid-2016 population estimates are out next Tuesday for the US, the states, DC and Puerto Rico as well as the voting-age estimates for each state and demographic changes over the past year (births, deaths, migration balances - which includes international and domestic migration estimates for each state).

Something to look at:

* CO will overtake MN in terms of total population
* PA could overtake IL, but that's very unlikely (more likely in 2017)
* NJ could hit 9 million (also unlikely => 2017)
* TN will overtake IN's population
* UT will definitely pass the 3 million
* AR could hit 3 million too (but much more likely that it will be in 2017)
* NV will overtake KS

---

* TX will remain the state with the biggest numerical gain (+450k)
* FL and CA will follow with +350k each
* WA might actually become the 4th fastest growing state numerically
* GA and NC still have steady high growth (+130K each)
* CO and AZ will be around +100K each
* OR probably picked up some speed (+70K)
* The 10th slot will go to SC (+65K)

---

In terms of % growth, a couple states will match themselves for 1st place because I guess ND's growth will fall back a bit to 1.5%

CO, NV, FL, UT, TX and DC are likely to grow between 1.7 and 2% each.

Hard to say who comes out on top ...

---

In general, births in the US dropped by 1% last year while deaths increased by 3.5% - resulting in a lower natural increase.

The big unknown is the immigration balance.

In general I believe the US population is up a bit less than last year (2.45 million vs. 2.51 million), but if the migration surplus was higher that could also change.

ND could totally collapse. No jobs on the rigs, means no support jobs in grocery stores, construction of apartments, etc. These are the types of jobs that will instantly disappear. Without family roots, people will pack up and move on.

[Tender Branson]

I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...

[jimrtex]

I don't see a total collapse in ND.

Maybe down to +1% from the previous year's 2% (when it was still the fastest growing state in the US, even though oil prices already went down).

ND still has much more births than deaths and some people are still moving there, so probably no total collapse ...

They'll take their children with them when they move.