Census population estimates 2011-2019

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

If it was desired that 100% of districts be within 5% of the mean, this could be done with a House of 3031. The final piece is Vermont six seats being underpopulated to above 95% of the average of  109,328 persons. CA would have 368 seats, TX 269, FL 201. NY, PA, IL, OH would each have 100+; 15 others (down to CO and MN) would have 50+; 13 others (down to KS) would have 20+; 9 others (down to MT, RI) would have 10+. The final six would be DE 9, SD 8, ND 7, AK 7, VT 6, and WY 5. DC would have 7 electoral votes. 3031 + 50x2 + 7 = 3138 electoral votes. A speculators might want to acquire 3138.com.

That is a real website; its a Chinese Chess website.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

1. TX - 25,145,561 --> 28,304,596; +12.56%
2. ND - 672,591 --> 755,393; +12.31%
3. UT - 2,763,885 --> 3,101,833; +12.23%
4. FL - 18,801,310 -->20,984,400; +11.61%
5. CO - 5,029,196 --> 5,607,154; +11.49%
6. NV - 2,700,551 --> 2,998,039; +11.02%
7. WA - 6,724,540 --> 7,405,743; +10.13%
8. AZ - 6,392,017 --> 7,016,270; +9.77%
9. ID   - 1,567,582 --> 1,716,943; +9.53%
10. SC - 4,625,364 --> 5,024,369; +8.63%
11. OR - 3,831,074 --> 4,142,776; +8.14%
12. NC - 9,535,483 --> 10,273,419; +7.74%
13. GA - 9,687,653 --> 10,429,379; +7.66%
14. DE - 897,934 --> 961,939; +7.13%
15. SD - 814,180 --> 869,666; +6.81%
16. MT - 989,415 --> 1,050,493; +6.17%
17. CA - 37,253,956 --> 39,536,653; +6.13%
18. VA - 8,001,024 --> 8,470,020; +5.86%
19. TN - 6,346,105 --> 6,715,984; +5.83%

50 States + DC - 308,745,538 --> 325,719,178; +5.50%



All the states growing faster than the US as a whole, by partisan lean.

12/19 Republican.

Trump won 30/51 (DC) states. Big growth in favor of the GOP. Trump was +500k votes in Florida compared to Romney.

Florida 2012 R: 49.03%
Florida 2016 R: 48.60%

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Alternatively, if we were to decide to have an increase in the House size such that no state would lose a seat, the House would have 447 seats, and this would be the changes:

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Alternatively, if we were to decide to have an increase in the House size such that no state would lose a seat, the House would have 447 seats, and this would be the changes:

How would Rhode Island keep its seat? Doesn’t Montana have more people than RI now?

Rhode Island: 1,059,639
Montana     : 1,050,493

about 9000 people difference as of 2017.

Probably going to switch in 2018/2019.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Why the increase to 436, unless it's to give one to DC?

The apportionment calculator is weird. Sometimes, it has either a few more representatives apportioned than it is supposed to have, or a few less. So the increase was a result of imperfect calculator math.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Posting a map of the next 24 seats that would have been awarded in 2010 apportionment if the House size was larger because why not?

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Just for fun, this is what would happen if they non-retroactively reinstated the no states can lose a seat rule for 2020:

It increases the House size by 18.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

For reference, this is my state by state population projection:

CA   40402290
TX   29502646
FL   21811223
NY   20028164
PA   12844485
IL   12790817
OH   11704839
GA   10710330
NC   10553235
MI   09991966
NJ   09086699
VA   08647908
WA   07664128
AZ   07252945
MA   06978168
TN   06856211
IN   06736115
MO   06160797
MD   06157766
WI   05836522
CO   05826331
MN   05680037
SC   05175709
AL   04910634
LA   04741554
KY   04497752
OR   04261009
OK   03998861
CT   03593521
UT   03230019
IA   03183203
NV   03110826
AR   03037752
MS   02990168
KS   02935879
NM   02099018
NE   01955636
WV   01801766
ID   01773571
HI   01453042
NH   01352784
ME   01338769
MT   01073661
RI   01062178
DE   00986216
SD   00890706
ND   00786803
AK   00751002
VT   00622867
WY   00585213

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

We ought to add 270 members to the US House.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

We should have a 705 member US House or something like that.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Just for fun, this is what would happen if they non-retroactively reinstated the no states can lose a seat rule for 2020:

It increases the House size by 18.

This map changes quite a bit, however, including the consideration of how much the size changes:

The size would increase by 22.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.

Based on my 2018 estimate calculations:

California has 40,045,459 people
Montana has 1,077,768 people

CA-53 value: 762,805
MT-02 value: 762,097

CA-53 is still slightly ahead.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Doesn't NY have a redistricting commission for 2022?

The commission is toothless, and can be ignored about as easily as the one in Ohio.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

I heard something recently that the states of Virginia and Tennessee were shown by some form of new data to have a surprisingly large population drop, and then both states were now on track to lose a Congressional District each in 2020. Only 1 detail I am forgetting: was it a strange dream or was it something real? Can someone please tell me.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Collin County had the highest raw gain in Texas. For anyone looking at the future battleground area when Texas becomes winnable for Democrats.

Tarrant County is a strong statewide bellwether most of the time (2018 was its only significant miss in a very long time). Collin County is consistently to the right of Tarrant County.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

So barring some sudden slowdown/decline, Oklahoma county will have enough people for it's own congressional district in 2020.    Any chance it gets one or will it get the Salt Lake county treatment?

The only reason the Oklahoma districts look nice right now is because the GOP in 2010 had nothing to fear from the dems - they were winning zero counties after all. Now, its guaranteed Oklahoma City is going to get tricut between her blood red neghbors.

There is a citizens initiation trying to gain signatures in the state that would prevent gerrymandering.

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Naive question: which states (outside at-large) wouldn't redistrict if their house seat total was unaffected in 2020 ?

Every state is required to redistrict for OMOV. Even states like Maine will shuffle a few towns around the edges, as in 2010. It is deeply unlikely that any state would have population changes so uniform that no tweaks to the maps were required.

West Virginia managed to get away without changing WV-01 in 2010.