Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 19, 2019, 03:52:07 am
News: Please delete your old personal messages.

  Atlas Forum
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderator: muon2)
  Census population estimates 2011-2019 (search mode)
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 91730 times)
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« on: December 20, 2012, 06:41:04 pm »

If the apportionment were based on 2012 estimates, with continuous redistribution such as is done in Australia, North Carolina would have gained its 14th seat and Minnesota would have lost its 8th.

Projecting the 2010 (Census)-2012(July 2012 estimate) forward:

2013: No change.
2014: Texas (37+), Michigan (13-)
2015: Virginia (12+) Pennsylvania (17-)
2016: Texas (38+) Rhode Island (1-)
2017: Florida (28+) Illinois (17-)
2018: Colorado (8+) Ohio (15-)
2019: No change.
2020: California (54+). Texas (39+), New York (26-), West Virginia (2-)

Projections assume annual compounding, and project to July 1, except in 2020 which is to April 1.   Overseas population is ignored.   In 2020, the last seats between California, Texas, and New York are very close with only 2 of 3 winning out.  So New York might keep a seat, at the expense of California or Texas not gaining.

The era of favorable rounding seems to be ending.   Imagine you had 5 states that were entitled to n.4 seats, where n is some integer (eg.  7.4, 3.4, 10.4, 9.4, 13.4).   Collectively, they would be entitled to 2 more seats than the closest number of seats.   So even though they aren't entitled to it based on their individual entitlement, two of them would gain the extra seat.  This process favors larger states since their deficit is spread over more representatives.  If California is short 50,000 people that is less than 1,000 per representative.  If Montana is short 50,000 people, that is 50,000 per district.

On the other hand, if you had 5 states that were entitled to n.6 seats where n is some integer (eg 7.6, 3.6, 10.6, 9.6, 13.6).  Collectively they would be entitled to 2 less seats than the closest number of seats.   When this happens, larger states are disfavored, since their surplus can be spread over more districts.

The fractions are probably close to normally distributed over [0,1).  But 50 states is a fairly small sample, and in the last two censuses, there has a somewhat large number of states with fractions just below 1/2 and relatively few just above 1/2.  In 2010, California, Florida, Minnesota, Texas, and Washington benefited.

If we continue the projection forward:

2021: No change.
2022: No change.
2023: Texas (40+), Alabama (6-)
2024: No change.
2025: Arizona (10+), Michigan (12-)
2026: Texas (41+), Florida (29+), Illinois (16-), Pennsylvania (16-)
2027: California (55+), Georgia (15+), Wisconsin (7-), Ohio (14-)
2028: No change.
2029: Texas (42+), California (54-)
2030: Utah (5+), Indiana (8-)

In 2027, California would get a favorable rounding, but would lose it as Texas surged past.  Under the current apportionment scheme, states can gain population share, but lose representation share.

If Rhode Island continues to lose population, it will have less population than Montana by 2020, and Montana is not going to be gaining a representative, so Rhode Island is almost certain to lose.  West Virginia should be very close to losing its 3rd seat.  Nebraska is growing only slightly than the country as a whole, and has just passed West Virginia in population, so it is safe at 3 for a while   On the other hand, Idaho has slowed a lot.   Previously it appeared that all 3 states would be around the 2.5 level in 2020, but Nebraska and Idaho now appear to be ready to keep their representation.

Alabama appears to be the next small state to lose a representative, and it could be this decade, if states like Arizona, Florida, and Nevada recover some of their past growth.

Oregon remains just short of a 6th representative, and by 2020 could have districts with 830,000 persons.

At the current rate, North Dakota gains its 2nd representative back in 2051.  Does Bismarck go in the east or west?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #1 on: December 20, 2012, 10:05:34 pm »
« Edited: December 22, 2012, 12:00:15 pm by jimrtex »

Fractional apportionment for 2010, and projected for 2020.  It can't be assumed that fractions round, since they are not rounded independently, and fixed size of House, even if projection was correct.

Change is accurate (subject to projection error).   Thus, Alabama is almost certain to lose 7th by 2030, even it saves it this time.   Number of seats, takes into account rank order of quotients, so is really a guess for states near 0.500 fractions.   Margin is the change needed, to cause the loss of a seat (or another seat), while increase is the projected population increase.   So if Alabama were to only gain 173K (only 18K less than projected 191K) it would in even more danger.  But if it bumped its growth up a bit, it would be safe for now.

California's projected gain of 3.630 million only has margin of 2K for 54th seat (3.627 million would not be enough).


State               2010    2020  Change   N  +-  Margin Increase  8-Ball.
Alabama            6.737   6.506  -0.231   7   =     -18     191   Getting real close.
Alaska             1.117   1.169   0.052   1   =     271      99
Arizona            8.999   9.332   0.333   9   =     110     748   Still a possibility.
Arkansas           4.129   4.033  -0.096   4   =     351     151
California        52.369  53.356   0.987  54  +1      -2    3630   50/50.
Colorado           7.087   7.550   0.462   8  +1     -54     743   Not sure on 8th.
Connecticut        5.049   4.785  -0.263   5   =    -229      73
Delaware           1.358   1.381   0.023   1   =      94      88
Florida           26.435  27.673   1.238  28  +1    -190    2399   Somewhat safe for one.
Georgia           13.627  14.055   0.429  14   =     311    1076  
Hawaii             1.976   2.031   0.055   2   =     363     148
Idaho              2.260   2.270   0.010   2   =     176     129   3 not getting closer.
Illinois          18.043  17.012  -1.031  17  -1     338     200   Sure loss.
Indiana            9.128   8.791  -0.337   9   =    -241     241
Iowa               4.312   4.167  -0.145   4   =     247     123
Kansas             4.042   3.949  -0.092   4   =    -355     149
Kentucky           6.120   5.926  -0.194   6   =    -339     185
Louisiana          6.392   6.344  -0.048   6   =     107     313   Stops the bleeding.
Maine              1.933   1.809  -0.124   2   =    -251       4   Safe until 2050.
Maryland           8.131   8.215   0.084   8   =     201     510
Massachusetts      9.217   9.145  -0.073   9   =     253     449
Michigan          13.902  12.906  -0.996  13  -1    -338      -1   Sure loss.
Minnesota          7.472   7.386  -0.087   7  -1      72     343   Long shot to keep 8.
Mississippi        4.201   4.007  -0.194   4   =     371      79
Missouri           8.433   8.025  -0.408   8   =     347     148
Montana            1.478   1.472  -0.006   1   =      20      72   Will Bakken help?
Nebraska           2.615   2.606  -0.010   3   =     -88     133   Safe for now.
Nevada             3.829   3.908   0.079   4   =    -323     269   Not even a solid 4.
New Hampshire      1.917   1.813  -0.104   2   =    -255      19   Safe until 2050.
New Jersey        12.369  11.912  -0.457  12   =    -340     328
New Mexico         2.937   2.887  -0.050   3   =    -307     120   Losing ground.
New York          27.244  26.427  -0.817  26  -1       1     869   50/50 on loss of seat.
North Carolina    13.413  13.759   0.346  14  +1    -227    1001   14 is in the bag.
North Dakota       1.070   1.159   0.090   1   =     279     129
Ohio              16.224  15.108  -1.116  15  -1     268      34   One is certain.
Oklahoma           5.297   5.298   0.001   5   =     144     290
Oregon             5.408   5.431   0.023   5   =      42     313   Needs to heat it up.
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.942  -0.920  17  -1    -373     274   In the bag Wink
Rhode Island       1.562   1.449  -0.112   1  -1      38     -10   Pretty much a lock.
South Carolina     6.521   6.647   0.126   7   =    -126     453
South Dakota       1.249   1.280   0.031   1   =     178      89
Tennessee          8.935   8.954   0.019   9   =    -366     504
Texas             35.350  38.459   3.110  39  +3     -50    4322   3rd is not in the bag.
Utah               3.917   4.198   0.281   4   =     224     430   Faster than neighbors.
Vermont            1.012   0.959  -0.053   1   =     454       1
Virginia          11.258  11.568   0.310  12  +1     -76     855   Somewhat safe.
Washington         9.466   9.834   0.368  10   =    -276     801
West Virginia      2.652   2.483  -0.169   2  -1       8      11   Could still save 3rd.
Wisconsin          8.010   7.669  -0.340   8   =    -146     177   OK until 2030
Wyoming            0.937   0.954   0.017   1   =     458      59
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #2 on: December 21, 2012, 11:28:21 pm »

+8/-8 would be the lowest total change in the whole 435-seat era. Interstate migration is low by historical standards.
Relative (and net) migration.  In 1950, if 10% of Minnesota retirees realize that ice fishing is not that much fun and move to Arizona to play shuffleboard, it is a significant increase for Arizona.  And since there were no people in Arizona at that time, none moved to Minnesota.

But now, a similar number of Minnesotans would hardly be noticed, some of the former retirees are dying or moving back to live near their children, and some Arizonan's voluntarily move to Minnesota.

And overall growth rate is declining.  For a state with 10 representatives to lose one, it has to grow 10% slower than the country.  If the country increases 20%, the state could have a healthy 10% increase and still lose representation.  If the country increases 10%, the state would have to have no growth, or could grow at 5% for 20 years.

But with the country growing at 8% rate, 5% growth results in the state losing a district every 30 years.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #3 on: December 22, 2012, 12:01:55 pm »

Btw, jimrtex, you didn't leave a comment on Pennsylvania, which is another certainty to lose a seat in 2020. Wink
Fixed.   Surprisingly, the forum software uses smilies for teletype mode.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #4 on: December 22, 2012, 12:08:32 pm »

Anyone know where I could find county by county loss/gain margins from '10 - '12?

I remember the census released data for change from 2010-2011. Is this going to be released at a later date?
The schedule release for 2012 estimate is in March 2013.  For cities, towns, and minor civil divisions (Northeast and Midwest except Iowa) in May 2013.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #5 on: May 11, 2013, 11:39:42 pm »

Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here by some Federal Reserve economists exploring possible reasons why the rate of migration has been declining since the 1980's. They find that the shift is not explained just by demographic changes, and explore some possible other explanations, including: that the range of industries and occupations has become more similar across metropolitan areas; that the rise of dual-career couples has made moves more difficult since both partners are unlikely to be looking for new jobs at the same time; and that the structure of work has changed in ways that disincentivize job changes. The last of these is their favored hypothesis.

The last sounds the least likely to me. I'm lacking any data in front of me, but there's definitely been a shift in the labor market over the past 30-40 years (somewhat longer scale, but still) from people entering the labor force at one company and working for that company for their entire lives to people changing jobs every five years or so.
Job changes includes more than company switching, and they were particularly focused on the last decade or so.

Their argument is that jobs at both the high end and low end have become more consistently common across metropolitan areas, and middle-skill jobs have decreased.

You don't move 2000 miles to switch from an east-facing cubicle to a west-facing cubicle for $100 per month.  You do it for an upgrade in salary, and that is possible to do within a major metropolitan area.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #6 on: November 19, 2013, 09:49:21 am »

New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #7 on: November 30, 2013, 11:28:49 am »

New state population estimates will be released in ca. 1 month !

My prediction:

316.159.818
315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.
Minnesota has already lost a US House Seat in this decade?  I thought Minnesota might stave off a lost US House Seat in this decade since it ranks 16th in population growth so far in 2011-2012. I know before the 2010 Census came out people thought Minnesota was gonna lose a House Seat to Colorado but it didn't happen. Now it looks likes it has happened. Maybe Colorado could have gained a seat from Missouri and Minnesota would have kept 8 House Seats would have been the scenario that I thought could have played out. Missouri's population growth has been miserable in 2011-2012.
If there was independent rounding, Minnesota would have had 7 representatives in 2010, since it had less than 7.5/435 of the total population.  But the same was true for FL, CA, WA, and TX.  These 4 states along with MN were apportioned an extra seat to make the total 435.

Based on the ranking:
429 GA
430 SC
431 FL
432 CA
433 WA
434 MN
435 TX
=====
436 NC
437 MO
438 NY
439 NJ
440 MT
441 LA

To keep its 8th seat, MN has to avoid being passed by two states, or alternatively pass some states ahead of it.

If you think of it as a finish of a long distance race, MN is in a pack with some fast finishers, and it just barely kept ahead of NC and TX.  If the race was another 100 yards TX and NC would have caught MN.   Also from 2010 to 2012, MN was 28th fastest, which is just mediocre.

Because of this cluster of fast gainers just above the threshold, and mostly slow gainers below, there have been few changes so far.   TX easily went past MN into 435, and then NC gained its 14th seat and the expense of MN.

By the time the slow growing states drop down to the level of MN, faster growing states have caught up.

2014: TX gains 37th (essentially it has lapped MN), MI loses 14th.
2015: VA gains 12th, PA loses 18th.
2016: TX gains 38th, RI loses 2nd.
2017: FL gains 28th, IL loses 18th.
2018: CO gains 8th, OH loses 16th.
2020: TX gains 39th, CA gains 54th, WV loses 3rd, NY loses 27th.

By 2020, MN will not yet have caught WV and NY, and OR will have surpassed it.

Based on projecting April 2010 census to July 2012 estimate forward to April 2020, Minnesota will have grown 6.5%.  But the country as a whole will have increased 7.6%.  Minnesota has to keep pace with the country as a whole to keep its 8th seat.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #8 on: December 02, 2013, 04:26:25 am »

What are the current odds of California getting a 54th seat at the next Census? I know that based on its shear population, it can easily be on the cusp of losing a seat, gaining a seat, or staying steady with minimal population shifts. Obviously, I think California getting its financial situation in order can only benefit good population growth. I'm just curious to know what the trends are leading towards (beyond the vague Northeast and Midwest towards the South and West).

I'm also wondering about Oregon and it's potential sixth seat. Based on what I've seen, it seems rather surprising that CO-08 will happen before OR-06.
Over the long haul, what is important is the difference between the rate of growth of a State and the country as a whole.  Based on the 2012 estimates, Colorado is growing at a rate of 14.8% per decade, Oregon at 8.2%, and the USA at 7.6%.

The differential for Colorado is 7.2% vs Oregon at 0.6%.  Colorado is making progress at 12 times the rate of Oregon.  To gain a seat, you can estimate that a state will have to have a cumulative increase of 1/(N-0.5) to gain an Nth seat.  So for Colorado 1/7.5 = 13.3%.  So the 7.2% is about half of what it needs.

Colorado barely secured the 7th seat in 2000 (it was much closer to 6.5), it solidified its 7th seat in 2010, and by the end of the decade will be right around 7.5.

Oregon needs 1/(6-0.5) = 18.2%, but at only 0.6% faster, it takes many decades to gain a seat.  A fractional apportionment would have them go from 5.408 to 5.431 from 2010 to 2020.  Its close to 5.5 - but making much progress.

California needs 1/(54-0.5) = 1.9%, which is about what it is doing.  It got a very lucky rounding in 2000, and a somewhat lucky rounding in 2010.  It is right about increasing a whole seat, but if it doesn't get a lucky rounding, it won't actually gain.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #9 on: December 02, 2013, 11:39:07 am »

It's interesting that so many seats will come down to the wire.  How much have projections changed since the 2010 census?  I'm surprised to see that AZ-10 isn't even on the short list?  Is AL-07 still in danger?
429. CA (53) 781 1.9%
430. CO (8) 54 0.9%
431. FL (28) 190 0.9%
432. VA (12) 76 0.9%
433. AL (7) 18 0.4%
434. TX (39) 50 0.2%
435. CA (54) 2 0.0%
-------------------------
436. NY (26) 1 0.0%
437. WV (3) 8 0.4%
438. OR (6) 42 1.0%
439. MN (8) 72 1.3%
440. AZ (10) 110 1.5%
441. MT (2) 20 1.8%
442. CA (55) 750 1.8%

If everything else were unchanged:

For AL to lose its 7th representative, it would have to gain 18 thousand fewer persons (0.4%) less than its projected gain of 4.0%.   For AZ to gain its 10th representative it would need 110 thousand more persons (1.5%) - increase its growth rate from 11.7% to 13.2%.

Since CA has about 1/8 of the USA population, it should appear about every 8th position on the list, so with 13 positions from CA 53 to CA 55, it is actually a bit sparse around the final seats.

The losses for IL (18), MI (14), OH (16), PA (18), and RI (2) are more certain (a margin of at least 2%), as are the first two gains for TX (37,38) and NC (14).

In a sense, AL is keeping its 7th seat because no one is stepping forward to take it; and NY, WV, and MN might keep their districts, or OR and AZ claim one with not a big jump.

Whenever the census bureau releases estimates, it updates older estimates.  So when it releases the 2013 estimate it will also make changes to the 2012 and older estimates.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #10 on: December 02, 2013, 08:11:37 pm »

Can most of the pre-2020 changes be considered sure things?  If growth fell off so that the decade ended with projected 2019 populations instead of projected 2020 populations, we would still have the new FL, VA and CO seats and the first 2 new TX seats?  In your mind are any of these in doubt?
The ones within 2% which I showed above are probably all in range of switching from being in the top 435 to being below.  Interstate migration and overall growth have dropped so much that even a 2% change is huge.  Alabama is projected to gain 4.0% population.  It it would gain only 3.6% it could lose the 7th representative.  That's a plausible slowdown.  But it is unlikely to to drop 2% to 2.0% or increase 2.0% to 6.0%.

Pennsylvania is projected to increase 276,000 in the decade.  But it would need to gain another 373,000 to save its 18th seat.  That isn't going to happen.

If fertility rates increase, that is pretty much an across the board in all states, with some older states not getting quite the benefit since they have a smaller share of woman of child-bearing age.  In Pennsylvania and West Virginia, an increase in the fertility rate, won't have as much effect on the birth rate or growth rate.

California and New York are extremely close (1 part in 20000) - so that is a coin flip even if the projections were perfect.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #11 on: December 24, 2014, 07:32:57 am »


Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49


The change since 2012 is that New York is not now estimated to lose a seat, which would the first time since 1940 that this had not happened, and Alabama is now expected to lose a representative.

As of 2014, there would only be four changes: NC and TX gain a seat, and PA and MN lose a seat.

The first column is the entitlement in 2010 if fractional representatives were apportioned, but the geometric mean were used.   If we define the P = population/quota, then a state with a population P = sqrt((n+1/2)(n-1/2)) would be entitled to n representatives.   Solving for
n, n = sqrt(P2 + 1/4).

We can adjust the quota such that sum(n) for all states = 435 (we can estimate the quota as the total US population divided by 435, and then recursively adjust it until sum(n) = 435.  It converges very quickly, and the initial estimate would have yielded a House of 436.865 members, less than two members extra.

The second column represents the entitlement based on the estimated 2020 population, based on projecting the rate of growth for the 4.25 years from April 2010 to July 2014, to April 2020 (using a compounded rate of growth).  Only the domestic population was used.

The national rate of growth would 7.9%.  States growing faster than the nation include all states in the West, except NM; all states in the middle tier from ND to TX, except NE and KS; and all states on the Atlantic Coast, from DE to FL.

The third column represents the change in raw entitlement between 2010 and 2020.

The fourth column represents the estimated number of representative for 2020.   If we use simple rounding, and give Wyoming and Vermont their guaranteed representative, this would only give 432 representatives.   Rather than choosing the states with the three largest fractions, we calculate the quotients as they would be for the apportionment list.   When there are extra seats for be apportioned, this favors larger states, who in essence can distribute their deficit over more representatives.  In this case, the last 3 seats go to CA, NY, and VA; while AL, AZ, OR, MN, and MT miss out.

The fifth column is the change in representation from 2010, showing gains for  CA, CO, FL, NC, TX(3), and VA; and loss of a seat for AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, and WV (Obama +4, -6, Net -2); Romney (+4, -2. net +2).

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #12 on: December 24, 2014, 07:55:40 am »


Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49



The second column represents the entitlement based on the estimated 2020 population, based on projecting the rate of growth for the 4.25 years from April 2010 to July 2014, to April 2020 (using a compounded rate of growth).  Only the domestic population was used.

The national rate of growth would 7.9%.  States growing faster than the nation include all states in the West, except NM; all states in the middle tier from ND to TX, except NE and KS; and all states on the Atlantic Coast, from DE to FL.

The third column represents the change in raw entitlement between 2010 and 2020.

The fourth column represents the estimated number of representative for 2020.   If we use simple rounding, and give Wyoming and Vermont their guaranteed representative, this would only give 432 representatives.   Rather than choosing the states with the three largest fractions, we calculate the quotients as they would be for the apportionment list.   When there are extra seats for be apportioned, this favors larger states, who in essence can distribute their deficit over more representatives.  In this case, the last 3 seats go to CA, NY, and VA; while AL, AZ, OR, MN, and MT miss out.

The fifth column is the change in representation from 2010, showing gains for  CA, CO, FL, NC, TX(3), and VA; and loss of a seat for AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, and WV (Obama +4, -6, Net -2); Romney (+4, -2. net +2).

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

Future losses:

AL 2020-2030
AR 2060
CT 2030
IN 2030-2040
IA 2080
KS 2050-2060
KY 2040-2050
ME 2050
MS 2040-2050
MO 2040
NH 2050-2060
NM 2050
WI 2030

IL, MI, NY, OH, and PA will continue to lose about 1 representative per decade.

While LA, NE, and TN are losing population share, it as such a slow rate or they have such a long way to go to lose a seat, it is not worth even guessing.

Gainers:

AZ +1, every couple of decades.
CA +1 per decade.
CO +1, every couple of decades
FL +1 or +2 per decade
GA 2040-2050
ID 2060
DE 2070
MT 2060
NV 2060-2070
NC 2050
ND 2040-2050
OR 2030-2040
SC 2070
TX +3 per decade
UT 2030-2040
VA 2070-2080
WA 2040

AK, MD, OK, SD, and WY are gaining population share, but it is indefinite when this will result in an increase in representation.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #13 on: December 24, 2014, 04:02:13 pm »

Jim, thanks for posting this. I have a question because I'm missing something critical here.

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

If Alabama were to gain 9k as compared to what? Over its 2014 population by 2020, compared to what is predicted for 2010-2020 (165k?) Am I reading it correctly that Alabama simply has to increase by 9k in the next 6 years to hold its seat?

Put another way, Alabama would need to gain 174k over 2010-2020 to hold on to their 7th seat?
If Alabama had 9K additional population in 2020 beyond what is estimated, it would pass New York for the 435th seat.

It is currently estimated to gain 165K over the 10 year period, though 70K of that has happened in the first 4.25 years since the Census.  Assuming that the 2014 estimate is correct, then it is estimated to grow by an additional 95K during the remainder of the decade.

If it grew 9K more (to 104K) it would save the 7th seat.   While 9/104 is 9%, it may be possible to change some of the components.   For example, 9K would only be an increase of 2% in the number of births.  Of course if the birth rate increases in Alabama, it likely will increase in other states.   Alabama has almost zero net domestic migration (3.5K in the first 4 years).   But Mississippi has had 27K net out-migration.   So totally guesstimating, Alabama may have had 50K out and 54K in over the four years.   Decreasing that going out, or increasing those coming in would make a huge difference in the net.   Domestic migration was estimated at 2K in the last year, so there is a favorable trend.

Contrast to Alaska.  It would need 307K more persons to gain a 2nd seat.  But the estimated increase is only 64K.  It is quite unlikely to have that sort of massive change.

Negative numbers indicate a smaller increase that would cause a state to surpass (in the negative sense), Alabama for the 436th seat.  For example, if Colorado gained 122K less than the 803K estimated, it would not gain its 8th district.   But it has also banked the 327K of the increase, so it is not quite like a 15% change in the the rate of increase (from around 1.5% annual increase, to about 1.3% annual increase), but rather a 25% change in the rate of future increase (from around 1.5% annual increase, to about 1.1% annual increase).  Still possible, since migration is more susceptible to economic factors, but becoming less likely.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #14 on: December 26, 2014, 04:01:46 am »
« Edited: December 26, 2014, 04:25:51 am by jimrtex »

Jim, thanks for posting this. I have a question because I'm missing something critical here.

The next two columns represent the change necessary to get an additional seat, and the estimated increase in population from 2010 to 2020.   For example, if Alabama were to gain an additional 9K it would stave off its loss of its 7th seat.  Since it is estimated to gain 165K, it is pretty clear that it is a coin flip as to whether it not it happens, because of changes in growth rates, errors in estimates, and what happens in other states.

If Alabama were to gain 9k as compared to what? Over its 2014 population by 2020, compared to what is predicted for 2010-2020 (165k?) Am I reading it correctly that Alabama simply has to increase by 9k in the next 6 years to hold its seat?

Put another way, Alabama would need to gain 174k over 2010-2020 to hold on to their 7th seat?
Here is a couple additional values.  The 2nd to last column is the average annual rate of increase from April 2010 to July 2014, the last column is the average rate of increase from July 2014 to April 2020 that would be needed for a more favorable/less favorable outcome.

Alabama            6.737   6.461  -0.277   6  -1       9     165   0.34%   0.37%
Alaska             1.117   1.126   0.009   1   =     307      64   0.87%   6.90%
Arizona            8.999   9.417   0.418   9   =      33     828   1.22%   1.31%
Arkansas           4.129   3.986  -0.143   4   =    -393     120   0.40%  -1.99%
California        52.369  53.406   1.036  54  +1    -179    3747   0.96%   0.89%
Colorado           7.087   7.612   0.525   8  +1    -122     803   1.49%   1.12%
Connecticut        5.049   4.751  -0.298   5   =    -215      53   0.15%  -0.91%
Delaware           1.358   1.382   0.024   1   =      92      91   0.97%   2.55%
Florida           26.435  27.969   1.534  28  +1    -489    2668   1.34%   0.93%
Georgia           13.627  13.919   0.292  14   =    -385     992   0.98%   0.34%
Hawaii             1.976   2.022   0.045   2   =     369     144   1.01%   4.94%
Idaho              2.260   2.307   0.048   2   =     143     162   0.99%   2.39%
Illinois          18.043  16.873  -1.170  17  -1    -364     118   0.09%  -0.40%
Indiana            9.128   8.810  -0.318   9   =    -278     269   0.41%  -0.32%
Iowa               4.312   4.186  -0.126   4   =     228     144   0.46%   1.68%
Kansas             4.042   3.906  -0.135   4   =    -331     121   0.42%  -1.62%
Kentucky           6.120   5.903  -0.217   6   =    -336     176   0.40%  -0.94%
Louisiana          6.392   6.287  -0.105   6   =     143     278   0.60%   1.11%
Maine              1.933   1.806  -0.127   2   =    -253       4   0.03%  -3.57%
Maryland           8.131   8.172   0.041   8   =     225     489   0.82%   1.44%
Massachusetts      9.217   9.161  -0.057   9   =     230     475   0.70%   1.27%
Michigan          13.902  12.964  -0.938  13  -1    -415      62   0.06%  -0.68%
Minnesota          7.472   7.404  -0.068   7  -1      49     368   0.67%   0.82%
Mississippi        4.201   3.979  -0.222   4   =    -387      63   0.21%  -2.14%
Missouri           8.433   8.047  -0.386   8   =     321     177   0.29%   1.18%
Montana            1.478   1.483   0.005   1   =       9      82   0.80%   0.96%
Nebraska           2.615   2.600  -0.016   3   =     -90     132   0.70%  -0.11%
Nevada             3.829   3.988   0.159   4   =    -395     337   1.18%  -1.23%
New Hampshire      1.917   1.817  -0.100   2   =    -262      24   0.18%  -3.53%
New Jersey        12.369  11.915  -0.453  12   =    -373     348   0.39%  -0.34%
New Mexico         2.937   2.809  -0.129   3   =    -253      63   0.30%  -1.89%
New York          27.244  26.387  -0.856  27   =     -38     877   0.44%   0.41%
North Carolina    13.413  13.717   0.304  14  +1    -230     989   0.99%   0.60%
North Dakota       1.070   1.204   0.134   1   =     240     168   2.26%   6.83%
Ohio              16.224  15.212  -1.012  15  -1     171     136   0.12%   0.37%
Oklahoma           5.297   5.307   0.010   5   =     131     305   0.78%   1.34%
Oregon             5.408   5.450   0.042   5   =      21     336   0.84%   0.93%
Pennsylvania      17.862  16.813  -1.049  17  -1    -318     201   0.16%  -0.28%
Rhode Island       1.562   1.467  -0.095   1  -1      22       6   0.06%   0.42%
South Carolina     6.521   6.697   0.176   7   =    -182     502   1.04%   0.40%
South Dakota       1.249   1.285   0.036   1   =     172      95   1.11%   4.20%
Tennessee          8.935   8.916  -0.018   9   =    -360     489   0.74%  -0.20%
Texas             35.350  38.580   3.230  39  +3    -242    4472   1.65%   1.51%
Utah               3.917   4.203   0.286   4   =     215     440   1.49%   2.64%
Vermont            1.012   0.958  -0.053   1   =     453       2   0.03%   9.95%
Virginia          11.258  11.457   0.199  12  +1     -21     786   0.94%   0.90%
Washington         9.466   9.839   0.374  10   =    -305     820   1.16%   0.43%
West Virginia      2.652   2.457  -0.195   2  -1      26      -6  -0.03%   0.21%
Wisconsin          8.010   7.642  -0.368   8   =    -144     167   0.29%  -0.14%
Wyoming            0.937   0.942   0.005   1   =     468      49   0.85%  11.30%

So Alabama would only need to increase its rate of increase from 0.34% to 0.37% to stave off loss of it 7th seat.

This is the same information, with states ordered on the smallest change needed for a more favorable outcome.  Only states which could improve their outcome with a change in rate of increase of less than 0.50% are shown.


Alabama        6.737  6.461 -0.277  6  -1    9  165  0.34%  0.37%  To avoid loss of 7th.
Arizona        8.999  9.417  0.418  9   =   33  828  1.22%  1.31%  To gain 10th.
Oregon         5.408  5.450  0.042  5   =   21  336  0.84%  0.93%  To gain 6th.
Minnesota      7.472  7.404 -0.068  7  -1   49  368  0.67%  0.82%  To avoid loss of 8th.
Montana        1.478  1.483  0.005  1   =    9   82  0.80%  0.96%  To gain 2nd.
West Virginia  2.652  2.457 -0.195  2  -1   26   -6 -0.03%  0.21%  To avoid loss of 3rd.
Ohio          16.224 15.212 -1.012 15  -1  171  136  0.12%  0.37%  To avoid loss of 16th.
Rhode Island   1.562  1.467 -0.095  1  -1   22    6  0.06%  0.42%  To avoid loss of 2nd.


And here is the change that would result in a less favorable outcome.

New York      27.244 26.387 -0.856 27   =  -38  877  0.44%  0.41%  To lose 27th.
Virginia      11.258 11.457  0.199 12  +1 - 21  786  0.94%   .90%  To not gain 12th.
California    52.369 53.406  1.036 54  +1 -179 3747  0.96%  0.89%  To not gain 54th.
Texas         35.350 38.580  3.230 39  +3 -242 4472  1.65%  1.51%  To be +2, not +3.
Colorado       7.087  7.612  0.525  8  +1 -122  803  1.49%  1.12%  To not gain 8th.
NorthCarolina 13.413 13.717  0.304 14  +1 -230  989  0.99%  0.60%  To not gain 14th.
Florida       26.435 27.969  1.534 28  +1 -489 2668  1.34%  0.93%  To not gain 28th.
Pennsylvania  17.862 16.813 -1.049 17  -1 -318  201  0.16% -0.28%  To be -2, not -1.
Wisconsin      8.010  7.642 -0.368  8   = -144  167  0.29% -0.14%  To lose 8th.
Illinois      18.043 16.873 -1.170 17  -1 -364   18  0.09% -0.40%  To be -2, not -1.


If we regard any change of more than 0.50% in the annual rate of growth to be quite improbable, then the losses of one seat by IL, MI, and PA to be certain; as is the increase of +2 by Texas.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #15 on: December 26, 2014, 04:47:17 am »

Also:

NC to pass 10 million people for the 1st time ever in ca. 1 month.

NC had 9.944 million on July 1, 2014 and adds ca. 8K people each month.

This is interesting.  North Carolina have similar populations, and quite similar rates of increase, but the components are quite distiffernt.


State            Increase  Natural    Births    Deaths  Migration  Intern.  Domestic
Georgia          408,662   248,226   556,992   308,766   151,661   102,677    48,984
North Carolina   408,273   166,093   511,558   345,465   233,880    90,452   143,428


Georgia has a substantially higher natural increase, with more births and fewer deaths, which indicates a younger population, or possibly a larger share of the population is Black and Hispanic.  Yet net domestic migration is much higher in North Carolina.  Interstate movers are typically in their 20s, moving for employment or adventure reasons, and would be expected to provide a base of child-bearers, who aren't dying for a few more decades.

Is there substantial movement from Atlanta back to southern states, such that the net change is small?   Is there a difference due to the dominance of Atlanta, which leaves a vast rural area, whereas in North Carolina you have Charlotte, Raleigh-Durham, and Greensboro-Winston-Salem.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #16 on: December 22, 2015, 10:23:07 am »

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2015 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 3 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate.

4-1/4 ?
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #17 on: December 23, 2015, 04:22:08 am »

Alabama is intriguing.  Granted my experience is limited to North Alabama (the Black belt may certainly be shrinking) but in our rural area of Northeast Alabama we are experiencing solid growth.   I have new neighbors/students from California, Oregon, Texas, Alaska, Tennessee, Florida, and Nevada.   It is known that rural Alabama is a combination of what rural Texas and Florida were a generation ago (cheap open farmland and people retiring because Alabama doesn't tax retirement/social security).  

And Huntsville is rapidly growing.  
If fractional representation was awarded, Alabama would lose 0.299 representatives. It in essence dropped from 7 to 6, due to rounding.

The national growth rate (2010 to 2020) is 8.0%, while for Alabama is 3.2%.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #18 on: December 23, 2015, 04:55:06 am »

If we were doing continuous reapportionment, Florida (28) and Oregon (6) would have gained a seat, and Illinois (17) and Michigan (13) would have lost a seat. These would be in addition to previous gains in for Texas (37) and North Carolina (14), and losses for Minnesota (7) and Pennsylvania (17).

In Michigan this would could result in the Detroit UCC adding Washtenaw or Genesee to keep 6 districts.

2014 projected gains: CA, CO, FL, NC, TX (+3), VA
2015 projected gains: AZ, CA, CO, FL, NC, OR TX (+3)

So not only is Oregon projected to now add a seat, it has already reached the level needed.

2014 projected losses: AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, WV
2015 projected losses: AL, IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI, WV

While it now appears that New York will extend a 7-decade string of losing districts, this will be the first without multiple losses.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #19 on: December 23, 2015, 07:04:52 am »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #20 on: January 03, 2016, 10:41:12 pm »
« Edited: January 20, 2016, 10:16:08 am by 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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #21 on: January 06, 2016, 03:58:02 pm »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #22 on: January 18, 2016, 06:55:20 pm »

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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #23 on: January 20, 2016, 10:40:13 am »

"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.
Logged
jimrtex
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 9,086
Marshall Islands


« Reply #24 on: December 17, 2016, 09:07:42 am »

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.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 Print 
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines