Census Estimates for 2007 -> 2010 Apportionment
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 10:57:52 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Census Estimates for 2007 -> 2010 Apportionment
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2 3
Author Topic: Census Estimates for 2007 -> 2010 Apportionment  (Read 22547 times)
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« on: December 27, 2007, 01:00:30 AM »

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2007. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth through July 1, 2005, then applied that to the new estimate for July 1, 2007. This gives some projected growth over the next 2 3/4 years.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from CA and NJ to MN and OR. The last states awarded seats were AZ 10 (431), PA 18 (432), TX 36 (433), MN 8 (434) and OR 6 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation.

The next five seats would go to WA 10 (436), NY 28 (437), MO 9 (438), SC 7 (439), and IL 19 (440). Seat 436 is important if Congress passes the DC representation act since that seat could be real in 2010. Last year I noted the appearance of WA and OR on the bubble list,  suggesting that the Census Bureau is seeing a new growth spurt in those states. Note that OR did indeed move up to 435.
Logged
they don't love you like i love you
BRTD
Atlas Prophet
*****
Posts: 112,695
Ukraine


Political Matrix
E: -6.50, S: -6.67

P P
Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #1 on: December 27, 2007, 01:02:43 AM »

yay!
Logged
Padfoot
padfoot714
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 4,531
United States


Political Matrix
E: -2.58, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #2 on: December 27, 2007, 01:53:57 AM »

interesting to see SC on the bubble list.  I don't recall them being so close last year.  Could they be the surprise gainer of 2010?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #3 on: December 27, 2007, 05:14:06 AM »

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2007. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth through July 1, 2005, then applied that to the new estimate for July 1, 2007. This gives some projected growth over the next 2 3/4 years.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from CA and NJ to MN and OR. The last states awarded seats were AZ 10 (431), PA 18 (432), TX 36 (433), MN 8 (434) and OR 6 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation.

The next five seats would go to WA 10 (436), NY 28 (437), MO 9 (438), SC 7 (439), and IL 19 (440). Seat 436 is important if Congress passes the DC representation act since that seat could be real in 2010. Last year I noted the appearance of WA and OR on the bubble list,  suggesting that the Census Bureau is seeing a new growth spurt in those states. Note that OR did indeed move up to 435.

While of course these are mere projections, if they hold up, then the states which voted for Bush in would gain seven electoral college votes, and the states which voted for Kerry would lose seven  electoral college votes.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #4 on: December 27, 2007, 08:32:50 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2007, 09:29:53 AM »



This is what the new map would look like.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2007, 09:33:41 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2007, 09:50:05 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #8 on: December 27, 2007, 09:55:11 AM »
« Edited: December 27, 2007, 10:22:08 AM by Josh22 »



This is what I think will happen

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
MN -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1


I believe that NC will take a seat away from MN giving MN 9 and NC 16.

Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #9 on: December 27, 2007, 09:58:12 AM »

interesting to see SC on the bubble list.  I don't recall them being so close last year.  Could they be the surprise gainer of 2010?

I was surprised to see this as well. In 2005 they were estimated to be growing at a pace of 1.1% per year, just above the national average. Now the estimate has them growing at 1.3% over the decade, which is a substantial increase in the last two years. If the increase in rate holds up SC could get back the seat they lost in 1930.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #10 on: December 27, 2007, 10:04:04 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.

It will be a close count. Even though NC is not in the next five on my list, it would only need another 60 K beyond my projection to get a seat.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #11 on: December 27, 2007, 10:05:29 AM »




This is what I think will happen

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1
WA -1

I believe that NC will take a seat away from WA giving WA 10 and NC 16.



WA will definitely not be one to lose. They are on the bubble to go to 12 EV. More likely OR will stay even, MN will lose, or TX will only get 3.
Logged
minionofmidas
Lewis Trondheim
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,207
India


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #12 on: December 27, 2007, 10:19:12 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.

It will be a close count. Even though NC is not in the next five on my list, it would only need another 60 K beyond my projection to get a seat.
At what list spot are GA-16 and NC-16?
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #13 on: December 27, 2007, 10:22:56 AM »




This is what I think will happen

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -2
OR +1
PA -1
TX +4
UT +1
WA -1

I believe that NC will take a seat away from WA giving WA 10 and NC 16.



WA will definitely not be one to lose. They are on the bubble to go to 12 EV. More likely OR will stay even, MN will lose, or TX will only get 3.

Changed it.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #14 on: December 28, 2007, 12:09:00 AM »

NC and GA grow at the same rate in 2007. GA growth rate slowed down while NC growth rate went up.  NC is about 500,000 people short of GA, I think NC will pass them by 2010.

Yes, but GA's growth rate is higher on average over the decade. They are estimated to have about 500 K more this year than NC, and that shouldn't change substantially in a little over two years when the census is taken. That is enough to get a seat for GA, but not for NC.

You may be right, but it will be fun to see how thing turn out over the next two years. I'm not to sure about GA, but I know the NC poulation is growing due to the movement of people form NY,NJ and MI. We need to keep an eye on this small fight for this seat.

It will be a close count. Even though NC is not in the next five on my list, it would only need another 60 K beyond my projection to get a seat.
At what list spot are GA-16 and NC-16?

GA CD 14 is at 410, NC CD 14 is at 442. They aren't that close together.
Logged
CultureKing
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,249
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #15 on: December 28, 2007, 12:44:29 AM »

It'll be interesting to see if WA gets another congressional district... Odd to think that WA and Arizona have roughly comparable populations now.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #16 on: December 28, 2007, 10:10:38 AM »

It'll be interesting to see if WA gets another congressional district... Odd to think that WA and Arizona have roughly comparable populations now.

The current estimate is that WA has about 130 K more people than AZ. However, at current growth rates, I project that AZ will leap ahead and be 160 K larger in 2010.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #17 on: December 29, 2007, 04:54:10 PM »

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?
Logged
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #18 on: December 29, 2007, 05:44:06 PM »

The information with respect to reapportionment is very interesting.

Looking forward to census data info with respect to redistricting.
Logged
Mr. Paleoconservative
Reagan Raider
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 560
United States


Political Matrix
E: -3.29, S: 5.30

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #19 on: December 29, 2007, 05:50:25 PM »
« Edited: December 29, 2007, 05:53:32 PM by Mr. Paleoconservative »

Just about any way you crack it up, this should mean one more republican Congressman for Oregon.  Though looking at the present state of politics in Oregon combined with an utterly incompetent country club state GOP, odds are they could lose the new "sure thing" congressional district as well.

 
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #20 on: December 29, 2007, 05:58:00 PM »

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?

I use the same method to apportion congressional seats as does the Census Bureau. I've written the formulas into a spreadsheet so that I can enter new values and determine winners and losers. I don't know if there is an online version of a program, but the Census does have a description.
Logged
Josh/Devilman88
josh4bush
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,079
Political Matrix
E: 3.61, S: -1.74

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #21 on: December 29, 2007, 06:30:13 PM »

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?

I use the same method to apportion congressional seats as does the Census Bureau. I've written the formulas into a spreadsheet so that I can enter new values and determine winners and losers. I don't know if there is an online version of a program, but the Census does have a description.

Could you tell me the formulas you enter into your Spreadsheet? I am trying to make one for myself.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #22 on: December 29, 2007, 07:20:00 PM »

How do you give out EV to the states? Is there a program online I could use?

I use the same method to apportion congressional seats as does the Census Bureau. I've written the formulas into a spreadsheet so that I can enter new values and determine winners and losers. I don't know if there is an online version of a program, but the Census does have a description.

Could you tell me the formulas you enter into your Spreadsheet? I am trying to make one for myself.

The simplest spreadsheet includes a row for each state and a total at top or bottom. Then create columns for the state name (A), population (B), number of representatives (C), and the priority value D = B/sqrt(C*(C+1)). In the total row you have sums for the representatives (C) and the max of the priority values (D). Start by filling all the representatives to 1, then add one in turn to each state marked as the maximum priority value. Stop when the total number reaches 435 representatives.
Logged
bgwah
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 13,833
United States


Political Matrix
E: -1.03, S: -6.96

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #23 on: December 29, 2007, 11:18:14 PM »
« Edited: December 29, 2007, 11:24:48 PM by bgwah »

Just about any way you crack it up, this should mean one more republican Congressman for Oregon.  Though looking at the present state of politics in Oregon combined with an utterly incompetent country club state GOP, odds are they could lose the new "sure thing" congressional district as well.

A tenth WA district would probably be Republican, too. It would ruin the perfect East-West balance in districts we've had for a while, meaning the tenth district would have to have large portions of both Western and Eastern Washington. The most logical place for a district to crossover would be in the southernmost part of the state, containing parts of suburban Portland (Vancouver area) and into South Central Washington to the Yakima area. I would expect the GOP to have the advantage here, but, as you point out, the GOP in the NW is in a pretty sorry state as of late, so who knows (WA-3 is a lean R district that voted for Bush in SW Washington that is held by a Democrat who has been easily winning re-election). I doubt the GOP will be able to keep WA-8 too much longer, especially if a tenth district is added (changing the rest of the districts significantly). With 10 districts in Washington, 7 held by Democrats and 3 by Republicans seems the most likely.
Logged
Meeker
meekermariner
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 14,164


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #24 on: December 30, 2007, 02:48:38 AM »

Ooooh... please let us get another seat. We promise not to elect a crazy!
Logged
Pages: [1] 2 3  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

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

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.051 seconds with 11 queries.