Prospective electoral vote allocation for the next decade

[solarstorm]

I've calculated the likely outcome of the future EV distribution.

Eight states are likely to lose one elector: AL, IL, MI, MN, OH, PA, RI, WV
Six states are likely to gain one elector: CA, CO, FL, NC, VA
Texas will probably gain even three electors.

Bye-bye, redundant Representative from Rhode Island! Bye-bye WV-03!
Poor Montanans! They will probably have to wait another decade to be fairly represented.

Democratic states: +2-5=-3
Republican states: +3-2=+1
Swing states:         +3-1=+2

[solarstorm]

I'm pretty sure NC is set to gain one?

Oh, sorry! You're right.
I somehow mixed up this decade's EVs of MI and NC.

[solarstorm]

Wait ... I did it all in vain??? 😨

[solarstorm]

Wait ... I did it all in vain??? 😨

Not necessarily. It's a good mathematical exercise, and you have one slight difference. I have AL getting seat number 435 and NY getting number 436. You have those states flipped compared to me, but both states will be on the bubble either way.

Indeed. The divide between Alabama and New York really seems to be the pivotal line.

New York's remainder: 0.4936949502
Alabama's remainder:  0.4657998807

But I did it via mental math. Perhaps I miscalculated.

[solarstorm]

I suspect CA-54 is quite tenuous at the moment, but its prospects have been improving over the years, no? (I suspect that the financial crisis played a role in California not gaining a seat in 2010.)

For the sake of comparison, how was 2010 looking at this point in 2005?

I think a comparison would be pointless, as Katrina threw off too much.

[solarstorm]

I suspect CA-54 is quite tenuous at the moment, but its prospects have been improving over the years, no? (I suspect that the financial crisis played a role in California not gaining a seat in 2010.)

For the sake of comparison, how was 2010 looking at this point in 2005?

Also, for the sake of curiosity, based on those projections, where are each state's additional seats beyond 435 in the lineup? (Where is CA-55, ID-03, NM-04, etc?)

According to my list, which muon2 says is based on the wrong calculation, these are the follow-ups:

 Alabama
 Oregon
 Arizona
 Minnesota
 West Virginia
 Montana
 Rhode Island
 Oklahoma
 Louisiana
 Delaware
 Idaho
 Ohio
 Maryland
 Utah
 Massachusetts
 South Dakota
 Iowa
 Florida
 North Dakota
 Missouri
 Alaska

[solarstorm]

The seats aren't apportioned by remainders. The geometric mean (Huntington-Hill) is used instead, and that tends to help smaller states on the bubble.

I've never heard of it before. I did the calculations "by instinct".
And as we all know that Wyoming and Vermont are waaay too underrepresented in the Electoral College, a method that helps smaller states "on the bubble" is much-needed...

[solarstorm]

The seats aren't apportioned by remainders. The geometric mean (Huntington-Hill) is used instead, and that tends to help smaller states on the bubble.

I've never heard of it before. I did the calculations "by instinct".
And as we all know that Wyoming and Vermont are waaay too underrepresented in the Electoral College, a method that helps smaller states "on the bubble" is much-needed...

The method of remainders results in some well known paradoxes, such as where the number of seats is increased but an individual state's share goes down. Huntington-Hill avoids that paradox and minimizes the percentage differences between the populations of the districts.

The funny thing is: Now that paradox re-emerges on Alabama, and it's all about 8 electoral votes again.
Coincidence or Illuminati?

[solarstorm]

Can anyone explain to me the changes in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Alabama*? They don't make any sense to me.

[solarstorm]

Can anyone explain to me the changes in Minnesota, Rhode Island and Alabama*? They don't make any sense to me.

Why wouldn't they make sense? All these States have seen below-average growth rates for at least 50 years.

Yes, but why have they been growing so slowly?