Talk Elections

Edit: This thread has been assembled from the separate discussions on official census estimates released this decade. muon2

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/releases/archives/population/cb12-250.html


The 10 Fastest-Growing States from July 1, 2011, to July 1, 2012
        Percent Change
1.   North Dakota   2.17
2.   District of Columbia   2.15
3.   Texas   1.67
4.   Wyoming   1.60
5.   Utah   1.45
6.   Nevada   1.43
7.   Colorado   1.39
8.   Arizona   1.33
9.   Florida   1.23
10.   South Dakota   1.19

Hilarious reversal, innit.

Based on jimtrex's post I don't see how Arizona gains a seat. Colorado might.

At a guess:

RI: -1
CA: 1
CO: 1
FL: 1
IL: -1
MI: -1
MN: -1
NY: -1
NC: 1
OH: -1
PA: -1
TX: 3
VA: 1
WV: -1


Alabama and Oregon appear to be competing for that last seat.

So, thinking about this in partisan terms:

RI: -1D

CA: +1D (new majority Hispanic seat)

CO: +1D

FL: Probably +1D (a court would require an additional Hispanic district under FDF)

IL: Probably -1R (although a court would draw -1D due to Chicago population loss)

MI: -1D (although in court at least 2 seats would flip from R+ to D+)

MN: -1R or -1Peterson

NY: Fair Fight or -1R

NC: +1R (will need to make McIntyre's seat permanently D for it to work, though)

OH: -1R

PA: Are they crazy enough to try -1D?  Probably a Fair Fight otherwise

TX: +2R +1D (or +3R if VRA doesn't apply to redistricting after next year)

VA: +1D

WV: -1R (don't think Rahall is still in WV-03 in 2020)

Colorado I think ends up 6D 2R if they are drawing a partisan map. Otherwise Coffman gets a safe seat in Douglas County.

Florida has no place to put a new Hispanic seat. They just put one in Orlando after putting one last decade in Miami, and the Miami districts already extend into other counties.  It's more likely to be R leaning in the Gulf Coast and they'll split off the Keys; however Garcia might get a packed seat if he survives the decade.

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?

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2012 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 2 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

None of these have changed since the 2011 estimates were released last year. There is some shuffling in the bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are VA-12, CO-8, AL-7, TX-39, and CA-54 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8, AZ-10.

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 ;)
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

Overall, this looks like it could be kinder to D's than the last several reapportionments, assuming that CO and VA keep voting left of the nation through 2020.  And most of the Rust Belt states will have no choice but to eliminate R's.  If any of OH, MI or VA are sent to court they will be D goldmines (PA less so because R's control the court).

Yes, I did an identical calculation more or less.

+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.

Yes, but in fact also the gross interstate migration rate has been undergoing a major decline. It was over 0.03 in 1990 and is now close to 0.015, and this has been a secular decline over the 20-year period, not just due to the recent recession. That decline in rate is enough to more than offset population growth, so even the gross number of interstate migrants is smaller now than in 1990.

http://www.minneapolisfed.org/research/wp/wp697.pdf

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 correct term is self-deporting. :D

That was one of my first thoughts as well. It's been quite some time since Democrats have had anything remotely nearing a friendly apportionment. I didn't think Colorado and Virginia were both on track to gain an additional seat this decade, as it now looks quite possible. Hopefully, California can hold on to some good sustainable growth and finally get its 54th seat. Interestingly, the CA Department of Finance underestimated population growth, which is the opposite compared to the pre-Census estimates.

While I wouldn't be sad to see West Virginia drop down to two seats, I was hoping Montana would have some nice growth to get its second seat back. Any reasonable redistricting would create divide the state East/West, which would give Democrats a huge opportunity in the Western district.

Btw, jimrtex, you didn't leave a comment on Pennsylvania, which is another certainty to lose a seat in 2020. ;)

County estimates for 2012, including change data, are scheduled for June 2013.

Fixed.   Surprisingly, the forum software uses smilies for teletype mode.

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.

Bump re the above to note an interesting new paper here (http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/feds/2013/201327/201327pap.pdf) 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.

I was just looking over this again and the raw numbers from 2010-2012 are interesting too.

States ranked by numerical population change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012:

State Texas California Florida Georgia North Carolina New York Virginia Washington Arizona Colorado Maryland Tennessee Massachusetts South Carolina Utah Minnesota New Jersey Louisiana Oregon Oklahoma Pennsylvania Nevada Indiana Illinois Alabama Kentucky Wisconsin Arkansas Missouri Kansas Hawaii District of Columbia Nebraska Idaho Iowa North Dakota New Mexico Alaska South Dakota Delaware Mississippi Connecticut Montana Wyoming Ohio New Hampshire West Virginia Maine Vermont Michigan Rhode Island 50 state + DC

2010 Pop-CEN 25,145,561 37,253,956 18,801,310 9,687,653 9,535,483 19,378,102 8,001,024 6,724,540 6,392,017 5,029,196 5,773,552 6,346,105 6,547,629 4,625,364 2,763,885 5,303,925 8,791,894 4,533,372 3,831,074 3,751,351 12,702,379 2,700,551 6,483,802 12,830,632 4,779,736 4,339,367 5,686,986 2,915,918 5,988,927 2,853,118 1,360,301 601,723 1,826,341 1,567,582 3,046,355 672,591 2,059,179 710,231 814,180 897,934 2,967,297 3,574,097 989,415 563,626 11,536,504 1,316,470 1,852,994 1,328,361 625,741 9,883,640 1,052,567 308,745,538

2012 Pop-EST 26,059,203 38,041,430 19,317,568 9,919,945 9,752,073 19,570,261 8,185,867 6,897,012 6,553,255 5,187,582 5,884,563 6,456,243 6,646,144 4,723,723 2,855,287 5,379,139 8,864,590 4,601,893 3,899,353 3,814,820 12,763,536 2,758,931 6,537,334 12,875,255 4,822,023 4,380,415 5,726,398 2,949,131 6,021,988 2,885,905 1,392,313 632,323 1,855,525 1,595,728 3,074,186 699,628 2,085,538 731,449 833,354 917,092 2,984,926 3,590,347 1,005,141 576,412 11,544,225 1,320,718 1,855,413 1,329,192 626,011 9,883,360 1,050,292 313,914,040

Change # 913,642 787,474 516,258 232,292 216,590 192,159 184,843 172,472 161,238 158,386 111,011 110,138 98,515 98,359 91,402 75,214 72,696 68,521 68,279 63,469 61,157 58,380 53,532 44,623 42,287 41,048 39,412 33,213 33,061 32,787 32,012 30,600 29,184 28,146 27,831 27,037 26,359 21,218 19,174 19,158 17,629 16,250 15,726 12,786 7,721 4,248 2,419 831 270 -280 -2,275 5,168,502

Change % 3.63% 2.11% 2.75% 2.40% 2.27% 0.99% 2.31% 2.56% 2.52% 3.15% 1.92% 1.74% 1.50% 2.13% 3.31% 1.42% 0.83% 1.51% 1.78% 1.69% 0.48% 2.16% 0.83% 0.35% 0.88% 0.95% 0.69% 1.14% 0.55% 1.15% 2.35% 5.09% 1.60% 1.80% 0.91% 4.02% 1.28% 2.99% 2.36% 2.13% 0.59% 0.45% 1.59% 2.27% 0.07% 0.32% 0.13% 0.06% 0.04% 0.00% -0.22% 1.67%

Also the percentage population change from April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2012 ranking:

State  District of Columbia  North Dakota  Texas  Utah  Colorado  Alaska  Florida  Washington  Arizona  Georgia  South Dakota  Hawaii  Virginia  North Carolina  Wyoming  Nevada  Delaware  South Carolina  California  Maryland  Idaho  Oregon  Tennessee  Oklahoma  50 state + DC  Nebraska  Montana  Louisiana  Massachusetts  Minnesota  New Mexico  Kansas  Arkansas  New York  Kentucky  Iowa  Alabama  New Jersey  Indiana  Wisconsin  Mississippi  Missouri  Pennsylvania  Connecticut  Illinois  New Hampshire  West Virginia  Ohio  Maine  Vermont  Michigan  Rhode Island

Change % 5.09% 4.02% 3.63% 3.31% 3.15% 2.99% 2.75% 2.56% 2.52% 2.40% 2.36% 2.35% 2.31% 2.27% 2.27% 2.16% 2.13% 2.13% 2.11% 1.92% 1.80% 1.78% 1.74% 1.69% 1.67% 1.60% 1.59% 1.51% 1.50% 1.42% 1.28% 1.15% 1.14% 0.99% 0.95% 0.91% 0.88% 0.83% 0.83% 0.69% 0.59% 0.55% 0.48% 0.45% 0.35% 0.32% 0.13% 0.07% 0.06% 0.04% 0.00% -0.22%

(^ The table feature is confusing. I couldn't get it to work right like jimrtex's one above so I used separate columns.)

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

My prediction:

316.159.818

316,211,453

315,712,013

NC+1, MN-1 remains only apportionment change, until 2014 when Texas gains from Michigan.

TX will have the largest numerical growth once again: ca. 400-450K I guess.

It's hard to say which state will have the highest % growth though: ND again ? Or DC ? Or WY ? Or UT ?

I'd say ND, then DC, then TX, then UT, then WA, then FL. No scientific reasons, just guesses :P

I also wonder if Michigan's population decline has stopped, though I suspect Rhode Island's has not. I expect most New England states to have more or less minimal growth.

I predict that the population on July 1, 2014 will be 35,274 if one doesn't count the zombies. ;) Would zombies count as three-fifths of a person for apportionment purposes?

315,594,607

316,667,233

314,159,265

More or less.

Though I fear that may be an irrational answer.

The official Mid-2012 population was already 313,914,040

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html

You might change your prediction, because the US typically grows by 0.7% each year now.

;)

319,030,466

1.6% growth has not happened in the US since the 1970s ...

It's ironic that I got your joke on a day I'm going to be eating pie.

I had cornbread (http://people.brandeis.edu/~mob/puns.htm) today.  It was good, but the pie was transcendental.

Michigan has lost 300 people 2011-2012 so yeah Michigan's population has bottomed out.

Well Massachusetts has ranked 13th in population growth so far in 2011-2012 otherwise yes the rest of New England has grown minimally. I think Rhode Island's population decline has stopped though.

Other 2011-2012 Census findings:

Georgia has passed Michigan for 7th populous state.

Arizona has passed Indiana in Population growth to move up to the 14th most populous state.

Nebraska has passed West Virginia for 37th most populous state.

Might happen this decade:

Utah will pass Kansas in population growth

North Carolina might pass Michigan for 8th most populous state

Oklahoma might pass Oregon in population growth as the 26h most populous state.

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.

I don't see MO losing a district until at least 2040.  MN has already lost it's district to NC, we will see if it can gain it back.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

There's a release date now:

Dec. 30

http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/popup.php?op=view&id=70683196&crd=cens1sample&

315,816,421

The numbers are out on Monday.

A fact: Georgia will top 10 million for the first time.

A 50-50 chance: Florida will overtake New York already this year.

A possibility: North Carolina will overtake Michigan (certainly next year, if not this year).

My predictions for the Top 10 in terms of 01.07.2013 population:

01 - CA (38.39)
02 - TX (26.48)
03 - NY (19.65)
04 - FL (19.55)
05 - IL (12.90)
06 - PA (12.78]
07 - OH (11.55)
08 - GA (10.03)
09 - MI (9.90)
10 - NC (9.86)

()

My guesses:

California: 38.3 million
Texas: 26.4 million
New York: 19.55 million
Florida: 19.5
Illinois: 12.9 million
Pennsylvania: 12.85 million
Ohio: 11.575 million
Georgia: 10.05 million
Michigan: 9.9 million
North Carolina: 9.875 million
New Jersey: 8.9 million
Virginia: 8.25 million
Washington: 6.95 million

Also, for racial demographics, in New Mexico, Latinos will become a majority of the state (currently 47%), and a plurality in California (currently at 38%, and whites are at 39%). They will probably become a plurality in Texas in a few years as well. And lastly, Nevada will become majority non-white in a few years.

My predictions:

1. California: 38,375,000
2. Texas: 26,697,000
3. Florida: 19,612,000
4. New York: 19,610,000
5. Illinois: 12,844,000
6. Pennsylvania: 12,841,000
7. Ohio: 11,524,000
8. Georgia: 10,110,000
9. North Carolina: 9,857,000
10. Michigan: 9,856,000

The numbers are out:

01 - CA (38.333)
02 - TX (26.448)
03 - NY (19.651)
04 - FL (19.553)
05 - IL (12.882)
06 - PA (12.774]
07 - OH (11.571)
08 - GA (9.992) !!!
09 - MI (9.896)
10 - NC (9.848)

GA has less than 10 Mio. ?

WTF ?

http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/tables/NST-EST2013-01.xls

USA: 316.128.839

Biggest numerical gains:

TX (387.000)
CA (333.000)
FL (232.000)
NC (100.000)
CO (79.000)
GA (77.000)
WA (76.000)
AZ (76.000)
NY (75.000)
VA (74.000)

Losses:

ME (-199)
WV (-2400)

USA (2.255.000)

Biggest % gains/losses (2012 -> 2013):

ND (+3.14)
DC (+2.06)
UT (+1.61)
CO (+1.52)
TX (+1.49)
NV (+1.30)
SD (+1.30)
FL (+1.20)
AZ (+1.15)
WA (+1.10)
SC (+1.09)

ME (-0.01)
WV (-0.13)

USA (0.72)

I nailed 5 of 10 states in my prediction and wasn't really that much off with my national prediction either ... :)

:D


Ouch on West Virginia, looking more and more to be 4 electoral votes. Anyways, some facts.

Florida is still behind New York, with its 19.55 million compared to NY's 19.65 million. :(

Georgia almost at 10 million, sad it didn't get past the milestone.

Looks like the trend we've been seeing all along, with the South and West growing fast and the Midwest and Northeast growing slow.

What was the percentage growth for NC and GA?

Does this suggest any changes in predicted apportionment for 2021?  It certainly looks like CO-08 became more likely and holding WV-03 became less likely.

()

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2013 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. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The only change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg3562852#msg3562852) is that CA and NY both hold even. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. Perhaps the most surprising is to see MT now appear on the bubble for a second seat. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are FL-28, VA-12, AL-7, TX-39, and NY-27 (#435).
The next five in line are CA-54, MT-2, WV-3, OR-6, MN-8.

As of right now NC has taken a 14th seat from Minnesota per this link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/)

The link gives some sort of error message for me. You may need to go back to the calculator (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/) and enter new numbers. I think the result you cite comes from assuming that the apportionment is done with the 2013 estimate, though it is generally more useful to project forward to 2020 when the next reapportionment will take place.

Hmm. Try this one. It's just an apportionment calculator.

Link (http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/tools/apportionment/)


I did check the apportionment both based on a hypothetical 2013 reapportionment (which results in the NC 14th seat) and exponentially multiplying out 2020 numbers, which gives you what you posted.

A couple more charts for easier viewing:

Sorted by numerical change

()

Sorted by % change

()

Based on these estimates, if we were to reapportion today based on them the bubble seats would be:

#431 WA-10
#432 MI-14
#433 PA-18
#434 CA-53
#435 NC-14

#436 TX-37
#437 MN-8
#438 VA-12
#439 MT-2
#440 OR-6

Cumulative % change (Census 2010 -> Mid 2013):

7.6% ND
7.4% DC
5.2% TX
5.0% UT
4.8% CO
4.0% FL
3.8% SD
3.7% WA
3.7% AZ
3.5% AK
3.4% WY

Losses:

ME & RI (ME was stagnant - lost only 59 people in 3 years, RI lost 0.1%)

Cumulative numerical change (Census 2010 -> Mid 2013):

1.303.000 TX
1.079.000 CA
   752.000 FL
   313.000 NC
   305.000 GA
   273.000 NY
   259.000 VA
   247.000 WA
   239.000 CO
   235.000 AZ

7.383.000 USA

Over 17% over the growth in the US is in TX.

Also for those of you who advocate the cube root apportionment method.  The 2013 estimates gives a House of 680 seats, up 5 from the 2010 census.  Changes in the House from 2010 would be California gains a 83rd seat, Florida gains a 42nd seat, Georgia gains a 22nd seat, Idaho gains a 4th seat, Michigan loses its 22ns seat, Mississippi loses its 7th seat, Oregon gains its 9th seat, and Texas gains its 56th and 57th seats.

  Alabama      10
  Alaska      2
  Arizona      14
  Arkansas   6
  California   83
  Colorado      11
  Connecticut      8
  Delaware      2
  Florida         42
  Georgia         22
  Hawaii         3
  Idaho         4
  Illinois         28
  Indiana         14
  Iowa         7
  Kansas         6
  Kentucky      10
  Louisiana      10
  Maine         3
  Maryland      13
  Massachusetts   14
  Michigan         21
  Minnesota      12
  Mississippi      6
  Missouri         13
  Montana         2
  Nebraska      4
  Nevada         6
  New Hampshire   3
  New Jersey      19
  New Mexico      5
  New York      42
  North Carolina   21
  North Dakota      2
  Ohio         25
  Oklahoma      8
  Oregon         9
  Pennsylvania      28
  Rhode Island      2
  South Carolina   10
  South Dakota      2
  Tennessee      14
  Texas         57
  Utah         6
  Vermont         1
  Virginia         18
  Washington      15
  West Virginia      4
  Wisconsin      12
  Wyoming      1

Yeah, the fact that TX has a relatively high birth rate (1.5% in 2012) and a low birth rate (0.7%) is helping.

TX grew by 1.5%, of which 0.8% came from a birth surplus and 0.7% from a migration surplus.

2012 to 2013 growth population:

()

Over average growth: 279
Under average growth: 248
On par growth: 11

Question:

What about Puerto Rico ?

Migration to the mainland ?

Better border enforcement (=> Mexicans staying in Mexico) ?

Unfortunately you can't see how much specifically they grew because I was didn't feel like doing shades, but Minnesota only grew slightly larger than the national average, and overall the Twin Cities are doing good and is growing much faster in comparison to Wisconsin or Iowa. Massachusetts seems to be the one area in New England that is actually growing, its a hot spot for liberals and Boston seems to be keeping people's interest. New Mexico actually had very little growth (the fourth lowest in the nation!). I'm guessing Latinos are still building up, but people are moving out of the state. But I have no idea on that one.

Updated topic title.

Does anyone know if any states switched spots in population rankings?

UT passed KS over the last year and NE passed WV.

That's all.

Beat me to it.

Ah interesting, thanks! Looks like next year might have a bit more movement in the rankings.

Just checked the NM situation:

NM had a birth rate of 1.3% in 2012 and a death rate of 0.8% - a surplus of 0.5%

But the overall population growth was just 0.1%, which indicates a massive out-migration.

The Census Bureau decided to release the "components of change" separately this time, in February ... :P

Sean Trende has:

2020:CO+1 seat, FL+1, MT+1 (!!), NC+1, TX+2, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1 (!!), WV-1

Using a different growth model that weighted the growth from each estimate, giving a greater weight to the estimated growth rate from 2012 to 2013 than 2011 to 2012, etc.  I come up with similar values that yield the same seat changes, but a different order of the ten bubble seats.

431 FL-28
432 VA-12
433 AL-7
434 NY-27
435 TX-39

436 CA-54
437 MT-2
438 MN-8
439 OR-6
440 WV-3

BTW, krazen, why the surprise at Rhode Island losing a seat?  Given these estimates, I fail to see how Rhode Island avoids losing a seat under any reasonable model of population change.

I merely cut and pasted his message. (https://twitter.com/SeanTrende)

In that case, since I don't have or want to be a twit, even tho I don't expect Sean to read this: Sean, why the surprise at Rhode Island losing a seat?  Given these estimates, I fail to see how Rhode Island avoids losing a seat under any reasonable model of population change.

pretty disappointed in Georgia. I was sure we would pass 10 million this year. A 77K increase is actually pretty dismal for our state as well. Even during the recession we were adding more than that yearly. What's even weirder is that the economy is really improving in Georgia. The unemployment rate is falling and the cranes are back all over Atlanta.

If Austria were a US state, where would it be in the ranking ?

12th in terms of overall population (8.502 Mio.)

11th in terms of numerical change (62.000)

Slightly above the US average in % terms (0.73%)

His Twitter feed doesn't give any sense of the model he's using. I pulled up his RCP article (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2013/12/30/population_data_show_more_movement_south_and_west.html) to get a better idea. He uses a linear projection instead of a compounding formula which puts large high-growth states like TX at a disadvantage and partially explains why he only gets TX+2. The list quoted above is not his initial analysis, but is based on adding the growth in 2012 plus twice the growth in 2013 so it is very sensitive to fluctuations in the 2013 numbers just released. His basic linear projection gives: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1, IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1, and is the same as the list I get.

Yes plus it also has a low TFR.

I'm surprised Minnesota grew faster than the national average.  This hasn't happened often recently at all.  Hopefully it keeps up.

When do county estimates come out?

March I believe.

I'll do the same for Israel:

13th in terms of overall population (8.132 Mio.)

4th in terms of numerical change (147,000)

3rd in terms of percent change (1.8%)

Israel is similar to Utah, having the same high birth rate and low death rate. Plus a good share of immigration as well.

Here, births and deaths are about equal - with all of the growth coming from foreigners moving in.

Here's my comprehensive chart, based on the Census Bureau file (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/totals/2013/index.html) yesterday (click right for big version):

()

I added the 4 "change" columns to the CB file and formatted it slightly.

In previous years, the CB always added the "change" columns themselves.

This year, they were extremely lazy ... ;)

A sad fact might be that Los Angeles County, California might hit 10 million in population before Georgia. As of now (2012 estimate) its at 9.96 million.

According to the CA DoF estimates for Mid-2013 it already did:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/E2_press_release_Jul2013.pdf

The Dof estimates use a different method though.

States that have grown faster/slower in the past year than on average in the past 3.25 years since the Census:

()

green => faster
red => slower

...

For example:

CO grew 73.600 on average in the past 3.25 years, but by 78.900 in the past year.

TX grew 401.000 on average, but only 387.000 last year.

Nice to see Michigan gaining population again.

Components of population change by state have been released here. (http://factfinder2.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk)

Link doesn't work for me

Sorry, linking to the FactFinder is tricky. What if you go here (http://www.census.gov/popest/data/national/totals/2013/index.html) and then click on the third link, called "Estimates of the Components of Resident Population Change for the United States, Regions, States, and Puerto Rico: April 1, 2010 to July 1, 2013"?

http://www.calendarwiz.com/calendars/calendar.php?crd=cens1sample&&jsenabled=1&winh=947&winw=1466&inifr=false

The most likely estimates for the TOP-10:

  1 - CA - 38.67 Mio.
  2 - TX - 26.84 Mio.
  3 - FL - 19.79 Mio.
  4 - NY -19.73 Mio.
  5 - IL - 12.90 Mio.
  6 - PA - 12.78 Mio.
  7 - OH - 11.59 Mio.
  8 - GA - 10.07 Mio.
  9 - NC - 9.95 Mio.
10 - MI - 9.91 Mio.

USA: 318.35 Mio. (+2.22 Mio., +0.7%)

FL overtakes NY. NC overtakes MI.

Any predictions for which states will have the biggest increase in % terms ?

Probably ND and DC will have the highest growth rates again, like last year.

I think CO might actually overtake UT for 3rd.

Or maybe NV is back in the top-3 again.

Last year, only ME, WV and PR lost population.

Some states, such as WA, OR, CA, WI, FL and GA (Atlanta Metro) release their own annual estimates - independently to the Census Bureau numbers (which means they often differ from those).

There are indications that the population growth in WA, OR and GA has picked up in the past year between July 1, 2013 and July 1, 2014.

CA's growth rate is steady at around 0.9% and FL has picked up 250.000 people, which means it has overtaken NY for sure in the new estimates out tomorrow.

The state estimates often differ substantially from the CB. On top of that, the methodology from the states varies from state to state. The CB uses the same methodology for all states, so it's the best measure to compare growth rates from state to state.

I assume the new numbers will come out at some point in the morning (EST time), which is afternoon here.

I'm at a birthday party during the afternoon, so please someone else post the figures here.

Thx.

I'll check in later.

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2014 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. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +1
WV -1

The only change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=182602.msg3996843#msg3996843) is that CA is back to +1 and NY is back to -1 as they were after the 2012 estimate instead of even last year. They continue to be the most likely to change, and there is some shifting in the other bubble seats. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CO-8, TX-39, VA-12, CA-54, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-27, OR-6, AZ-10, MT-2, MN-8.

Yep, FL passes NY: (http://census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2014/cb14-232.html)

CA- 38,802,500
TX- 26,956,958
FL- 19,893,297
NY- 19,746,227

Since the 2010 Census happened during the housing downturn of the Great Recession, I thought it would be worth testing the model if the growth was based off the last two years of estimates. That means that I use the 2014 and 2012 estimates and use them to extract a compounding rate of population growth.  I apply that to the 2014 estimate and adjust for the April to July difference, then add the overseas population difference increased by the state's growth rate. The result assumes that recent growth is more indicative of how that state will grow for the rest of the decade.

Using this model, I get the following projected changes, using bold to show the differences compared to my full decade projection.
AL -1
AZ +1
CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
VA +0
WV -1

The changes are all bubble states. The West shows more increase in growth recently, and if it holds to that growth the West could see extra seats as a benefit.

Back !

...

Top numerical gainers (2013 => 2014):

451K - TX
371K - CA
293K - FL
103K - GA
  97K - AZ
  95K - NC
  88K - WA
  84K - CO
  61K - SC
  56K - VA

Top %-gainers (2013 => 2014):

2.16% ND
1.71% NV
1.70% TX
1.59% CO
1.51% DC
1.50% FL
1.45% AZ
1.38% UT
1.34% ID
1.27% SC

States that lost population (2013 => 2014):

  -1K VT
  -1K AK
  -1K NM
  -3K CT
  -3K WV
-10K IL
-47K PR

ND is ahead again, but DC fell back a bit.

NV indeed is in the top-3 again, recovering from the housing bust.

CO is not 3rd, but has overtaken UT.

TX really continues to be a magnet.

The CB's infographic, showing how FL has caught up to NY in recent decades and now overtook it:

()

States with the highest numerical migration gains (international + domestic):

251K - FL
239K - TX
129K - CA
  58K - NC
  56K - AZ
  52K - WA
  51K - CO
  47K - GA
  45K - SC
  34K - TN

States with the highest numerical migration gains (international only):

161K - CA
119K - NY
112K - FL
  85K - TX
  52K - NJ
  37K - MA
  34K - VA
  33K - IL
  29K - PA
  29K - MD

States with the highest numerical migration gains (domestic only):

155K - TX
139K - FL
  42K - AZ
  40K - CO
  39K - SC
  36K - NC
  28K - WA
  25K - TN
  24K - NV
  23K - OR

What are the stats for international % of growth in a state? I bet an unusually high percentage of migration to MN is international.

Minnesota's international migration is 2.6 per 1000, a little lower than the national average of 3.1 per 1000. It has net domestic outmigration of -1.2.

The 10 states with the highest numerical domestic migration losses are all Democratic states:

  -16K MA
  -18K OH
  -20K VA
  -26K CT
  -29K MI
  -32K PA
  -32K CA
  -56K NJ
  -95K IL
-154K NY

Huh, I thought it'd be higher with all the refugee resettlement.

It may be that MN isn't much of a destination for immigrants except for refugees.

Arizona has still not surpassed Massachusetts in official numbers, but probably has as of today.

Maine continues to be a smidge ahead of New Hampshire.

Pennsylvania should break the 13,000,000 barrier by the year 2050.

The states with the highest international migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants):

   6.1 HI
   6.0 NY
   5.8 NJ
   5.7 DC
   5.7 FL
   5.5 MA
   4.9 MD
   4.7 CT
   4.2 CA
   4.1 VA

The states with the highest domestic migration gains (per 1000 inhabitants):

 12.3 ND
   8.4 NV
   8.0 SC
   7.6 CO
   7.0 FL
   6.3 AZ
   5.8 TX
   5.7 OR
   5.1 DE
   4.7 ID

The states with the highest domestic migration losses (per 1000 inhabitants):

  -3.2 RI
  -3.6 HI
  -4.6 WY
  -4.8 KS
  -6.2 NJ
  -6.8 NM
  -7.3 CT
  -7.4 IL
  -7.8 NY
-13.8 AK

VA and OH are purple states not Dem states. MI is Dem at the Presidential Level and at the US Senate level but not so much on the US House level and the Governorship the GOP had controlled the entire decade of the 1990's and will have controlled that office for most of the 2010's till a new Governor gets elected in 2018. The GOP has controlled the State Senate since 1982.

PA is about the same as MI although it has had one Republican US Senator since 1995 except for most of 2009-2010 when the late Arlen Specter switched parties from R to D in early 2009. The GOP lost the governorship last month though.

Yeah sure, but I meant 2008/2012 Pres. election results with "Democratic states".

Also worth mentioning:

Overall US population growth is ca. 150.000 higher than last year (but not beacuse of higher natural growth, but because the international migration balance is almost up to 1 Mio. people again).

I somehow hate long-term demographic projections.

"should" = could/maybe/whatever

Because it's impossible to estimate future migration trends.

You can estimate future natural population developments (births minus deaths) to some extent though, because of past trends in fertility and mortality. But even that does not take into account possible future economic boom/bust periods, which could heavily increase or decrease them (like after 2007/08).

In 2000 for example (during the height of the economic boom), the Census Bureau projected that the US population in 2050 is likely around 450 Mio. people.

In their latest projections though from a few weeks ago, it will have only 395 Mio. anymore ...

AZ is in NC population growth territory. Wow!

That's not surprising.

For most of the 90s and the years between 2000 and 2007 (before the economic and housing crash), AZ had 2.5-3% growth (or +150.000 people each year). Roughly the same amount as NC (but NC is bigger, so the relative growth was lower).

After the bust, both states had a collapse in their growth rates (domestic Americans were unable to move to the South or AZ, because they went unemployed etc.) and international migration went down too (especially from MEX). Also, AZ pissed off immigrants because of their new anti-illegal alien laws.

As I've said, I'm not a fan of long-term projections but if you want to know when TX is going to overtake CA as biggest state (based on the past year's numbers):

In the 2160s.

Of course, you are absolutely correct. I was joking because Pennsylvania has been a very slow growth state for an extremely long period of time, and is so close to 13,000,000 without getting there.

That said, it is a state we should expect to do pretty well out of climate change.

Disgusting

Damn you, Florida.

Predictions like that are meaningless. After some rapid growth in the 1890s, Texas had over twice the population of California in 1900.

I just looked up our 2013 numbers and it turns out that the international migration balance was 55K last year.

That means Austria had a rate of 6.5 last year and therefore a higher rate than any US state.

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.

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.

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


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.

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.

FL probably just hit 20 million.

Obviously great news.


Even better news!

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.

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.

Domestic Migration Gains 2010-2014(rounded to the nearest thousandth.)


Texas: 522,600
Florida 449.900
North Carolina 143.400
Colorado 140,100
Arizona   116,300
South Carolina 112,300
Tennessee 84,300
Washington 84,000
Oregon 58,300
Georgia 48,900

Top Domestic Migration Losses

New York -486,580
Illinois -318,987
New Jersey -204,197
California -189,282
Michigan -153,159
Ohio -122,031
Pennsylvania -89,155
Connecticut -75,852
Missouri -43,539
Kansas -40,173

Top International Population Gains by State(2010-2014)

California 648,856
New York 485,224
Florida 467,201
Texas 343,093
New Jersey 211,165
Massachusetts 151,731
Virginia 141,687
Illinois 128,843
Maryland 118,187
Pennsylvania 118,159

Top Migration Gains(International and Domestic Combined.) (2010-2014)

Florida 917,135
Texas 905,754
California 459,574
North Carolina 233,880
Colorado 183,324
Washington 179,873
Arizona 172,848
Georgia 151,661
Virginia 145,072
South Carolina 139,545

Top Migration Losses(International and Domestic Combined.)

Illinois -190,144
Michigan -72,674
Ohio -50,959
New Mexico -18,886
Mississippi -16,999
Kansas -15,299
Wisconsin -11,288
Missouri -8,048
Connecticut -5,861
Alaska -4,700

Almost a million for Florida and Texas?  Truely surprising.  Illinois losing almost 200,000 is also very surprising.

We're #1! :D

So are we. :(

Top 10 Natural Population Increases(2010-2014.)

Texas 1,711,241
California 1,466,489
Florida 1,041,077
North Carolina 384,476
Georgia 382, 879
New York 345,360
Washington 319,619
Arizona 319,485
Colorado 307,291
Virginia 300,913

Top 10 Slowest Natural Population Increases(2010-2014)

West Virginia -3,850
Vermont 770
Rhode Island 2,095
Maine 2,728
New Hampshire 10,296
Connecticut 17,332
Wyoming 19,795
New Mexico 20,622
Alaska 22,876
Mississippi 23,368

Where in Illinois are these people leaving from? Downstate or Chicagoland?

We'll find out on Thursday when the county estimates are released.

So Thursday is the day, then? Very exciting. I look forward to the county estimates more than the state ones.

On December 22 to be exact.

Some early trends from states who are releasing their own population estimates before the Census Bureau:

California (Jan. 1, 2015): +0.9% (+358.000)

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-1/view.php

Florida (April 1, 2015): +1.6% (+308.000)

http://www.edr.state.fl.us/Content/population-demographics/data/FLcopops.xls

Washington (April 1, 2015): +1.3% (+93.000)

http://www.ofm.wa.gov/pop/april1

Colorado (July 1, 2015): +1.7% (+90.000)

https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/dola/population-data-components-change

Oregon (July 1, 2015): +1.3% (+51.000)

https://www.pdx.edu/prc/sites/www.pdx.edu.prc/files/PrelimEst2015_Web.xlsx

...

These numbers would indicate a slightly higher population growth for the US compared with the year before (maybe up by 2.4-2.5 million compared with the 2.36 million between 2013-14).

But this is based only on these handful of states and their estimates are often totally different to the ones from the Census Bureau.

I'd imagine growth slowed down significantly in North Dakota.  The boom is over for the time being so I'd imagine many have left the state again.

Minnesota is probably around +0.7%.  Domestic migration continues negative even though millennials are moving to the state (esp the 25-34 age group).  It is being offset by baby boomers leaving.

The county population estimates will be even more interesting in North Dakota and Texas when they are released.  Many of the fastest-growing counties in the past few years have been in the oil patch in those states.  Will those become the fastest-declining counties now?  Statewide, will North Dakota just have slowed growth or has it gone in reverse?  The economies of the non-oil patch cities like Fargo are still vibrant, so growth probably isn't negative statewide yet.

I'd imagine the census won't catch the rapid migration due to the oil boom... at least not this year.  So I'd say ND will still have decent growth.  The price crash was thought to be very temporary and many banks still lent money to oil companies until quite recently.

But even during the rush many employees were doing 2 weeks on 2 weeks off rotations and many of those people were commuting from Minnesota.  A guy I know bought a house that way... in MN of course.

Yeah, ND's growth of over 2% in the previous years will end with the new estimates.

In the November jobs report, ND lost almost 10.000 jobs compared with November 2014 - a decline of more than 2% - which means people are likely moving out of the state again.

I guess ND's population growth is down from 2.2% to ~1% in the new estimates.

http://www.bls.gov/news.release/laus.nr0.htm

Also, another state which is badly hit by the mining/oil downturn is West Virginia, which is already one of the slowest growing (or already declining) states due to more deaths than births and almost no migration.

The state lost 14.000 jobs between Nov. 2014 and Nov. 2015, the only state to do so after ND.

Also, Texas' job growth almost halved as well (growing by 400K in previous years, but only 200K in the past year.

In general this could mean that states like NV, CO and UT are now the fastest-growing states in the country, with TX close behind. ND could actually fall out of the top-10 and states like WV could lose population at a higher clip ...

Yeah, it would be quite an upset if anyone could compete with WV as biggest loser.

New AZ numbers:

July 1, 2015: +1.4% (+91.000)

https://population.az.gov/population-estimates

Last year IL lost more in total pop than WV.

Not percentage wise, and no matter what travails Illinois may be facing they don't come anywhere close to the demographic and public health problems WV  has.

New CA numbers for July 1, 2015 came out yesterday:

http://www.dof.ca.gov/research/demographic/reports/estimates/e-2/documents/pressrelease_package_Jul15.pdf

Net domestic migration remains negative with foreign migration slightly more than replacing the domestic outflow. They largely cancel, and the growth is mostly natural growth from births minus deaths.

My goodness, Orange and San Diego counties have below average growth in CA, while San Francisco is considerably above it. Hip inner city urban areas are the cat's meow now. :)

Florida will reach 20,000,000 people. Only a few more years till it's bigger than Australia.

Oil prices started to plunge in Fall 2014, the estimates are for 7/1/15, so its possible North Dakota's rate will slow, but its probably too soon. Though if we have more weeks like this one, with oil below $35 a barrel, then we'll be back to 80's (declining) or 90's (slowest growing in the nation) rates of growth. Then hopefully we can find some land there for Buffalo Commons.

Also, NC will break 10 Mio. people for the first time.

AZ will overtake MA.

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

MD will break 6 Mio. people for the first time.

SC will overtake AL.

OR will break 4 Mio. people for the first time.

MS and AR might break 3 Mio. people for the first time (but it's more likely that UT does before them).

NH could pass ME.

Puerto Rico could drop below 3.5 Mio. people.

These will be out later today ...

should be interesting

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 5 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA +1
CO +1
FL +1
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There a number of changes since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=203537.msg4424230#msg4424230). AL is down, AZ is up, OR is up and VA isn't up. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are CA-53, TX-39, OR-6, CA-54, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are FL-29, AL-7, VA-12, NY-27, MT-2.

How close is NY to the cusp given your latest projections? I ask, because my little CD will have a very new design given the shape of the state and where I am, if it loses a CD. It will become a much more suburban CD. And Nolan in MN-08 will be happy if MN loses a CD. His CD per your rules is slated to become more Dem as it loses Pub areas on its south end.

4-1/4 ?

fixed: 5 1/4

NY would need about 300K more people than it is currently on track for by 2020. Alternatively there needs t be a significant slow down in the fast growing states, much like the Great Recession kept AZ from going to 10 last time.

BTW if I only use the last two years to make my projection, CA won't gain but FL will gain 2.

Nice to see Oregon gaining a seat in your projection.  :)

Also didn't realize that Montana was so close to gaining a second district.  It looks like the new Rhode Island At-Large would take Montana's place for largest single district by population.

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

So, Obama-states are projected to lose 7 EV (IL, MI, MN, NY, OH, PA, RI) - while gaining 4 (CA, CO, FL, OR) - for a net loss of 3 EV.

Romney-states gain 5 (3TX, AZ, NC), while losing 2 (AL, WV) - for a net gain of 3 EV.

IL lost more this year than last, though WV slightly edges IL in percent loss.

The national and state "components of population change" are also interesting:

The US had 3.986 million births last year and 2.625 million deaths (natural increase = 1.361 million).

It also had an international migration surplus of 1.151 million - for a total growth of 2.512 million people (+0.8%).

That means ca. 54% of the population growth came from natural increase and 46% from a migration gain.

...

Looking at the states, CA/NY/FL/TX/NJ were the biggest magnets for international migrants - while basically no person from abroad moved to WY/MT/VT/WV/ME.

The 10 states with the biggest domestic migration (= people moving between the states) gains were FL, TX, CO, AZ, SC, WA, NC, OR, GA and NV.

The 10 states with the biggest domestic migration losses were NY, IL, CA, NJ, PA, MI, OH, CT, MD and VA.

Only 2 states had more deaths than births: WV and ME.

Puerto Rico's population dropped by more than 60.000 people (or 1.7%)

Also, what has not been mentioned so far:

North Dakota actually remained the fastest-growing state between 2014-15, despite the downturn in the oil/gas sector in the past year.

ND grew by 2.3%, followed by CO/DC/NV (each +1.9%)

And not only that: ND also had the biggest domestic migration gains (= most people moving into a state from other states) per capita last year.

ND gained 10.000 people from other states in the past year - giving it a 13.2/1000 net domestic migration gain.

FL and CO followed far behind with 10/1000.

The state with the worst loss (= most people moving away to other states) was actually Alaska - which had almost 8.000 people leaving for other states and giving the state a -10.4/1000 net domestic migration loss.

Also, does anyone know why VA turned from a magnet for US citizens from other states between 2000-2010 to being in the top-10 of states with the most Americans leaving to other states ?

During the Great Recession the government sector was one of the few growth areas, particularly as driven by the stimulus. That may be a factor in VA. As the rest of the economy has picked up, VA doesn't stand out anymore. It would be consistent with my projection making a seat gain less likely than last year.

Do you mean MT-2 here?  Or WV-3?

MT-2. Fixed.

North Dakota's growth rate from 2014-15 was about the same as the growth rate from 2013-14.  So much for growth slowing down.

The only state to lose population since the 2010 Census is West Virginia.  (Puerto Rico has also lost over 250,000 residents over that time period.)  Maine and Vermont grew by less than 1,000 people over that time frame.  Meanwhile, Texas added more residents than live in many states - over 2.3 million.  

I think D.C. is actually the second-fastest growing state or territory over that time period, behind North Dakota.  If North Dakota growth starts to fall soon, D.C. might end up being the fastest-growing jurisdiction this decade.

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.  

IL certainly gave it the old college try

No, no it's not.

Montana has actually had some spillover from the drilling boom in adjacent states.  It may struggle sustaining any growth going forward, especially in the Eastern part of the state.

Also, what's with New Mexico ?

It even lost population last year, while most western states saw high growth - even the Plain states did better than NM.

I guess it's the Mississippi of the Rockies.

Here's a map of states which have all 3 factors:

A) a natural increase (more births than deaths)
B) a positive international migration balance
C) a positive domestic migration balance (more people coming from other states than moving out)

()

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%.

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.

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.

Any reason why Hawaii has a net negative domestic migration ?

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

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

It could also have to do with the military.

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

This is normal.

Based on a quick read of Population Estimate Metodology (PDF) (http://www.census.gov/popest/methodology/2015-natstcopr-meth.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.

When Maryland gain a district?

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

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

"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.

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

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

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

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

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.

My estimates for the TOP-10 states:

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

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.

I don't see a total collapse in ND.

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

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

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

Probably a silly thing for me to post ... but some families may stay put and wait for higher oil prices rather than moving out of the state. Some might also have moved to bigger ND cities who are less dependent on oil and gas in the meantime ...

NEVER! :P

Surprised that PA might overtake IL. Is all this growth in urban areas?

Mostly, yes.

And the suburban areas in the South-East.

The areas which swung heavily to Trump are losing population fast. The light-blue areas and the red ones, which swung slightly to Hillary, are having modest population gains:

()

citypopulation.de has a nice clickable map of population changes by county:

https://www.citypopulation.de/php/usa-census-admin.php

At least as of a couple years ago, literally the only places in IL with any growth were some north and northwest Chicago suburbs, some Peoria suburbs, Bloomington-Normal and Champaign (growing like crazy, not necessarily in population terms, but in redevelopment and revitalization). :(

Rig count:

June 2014: 170 (and had been around that range for 3 years, and would be for another 1/2 year).
June 2015: 77 (55% drop in 6 months). You may hang on now.
June 2016: 24

A lot of people would be moving in for opportunities. As workers take jobs on rigs, other employers have to push up wages, motels might be built, people hired in truck rental agencies, etc. Some people would move from Fargo and Grand Forks, and rent a trailer, but others would move from Rapid City and Gillette, and beyond.

If you built a motel, and have 80% vacancy, you're going to let everyone go, and pay the others minimum wages, as you try to hang on.

The timing is right for July 2016 to have 0% growth. I'm not saying that it will go negative. It just won't have growth like before.

This will be interesting to see who's right ...

I'm still predicting some 0.8% to 1.5% growth for ND between 7/2015 and 7/2016.

Do we have any other indicator of people moving out of ND over the past year other than the fall of oil rigs ?

Did the overall ND economy collapse last year and in the first half of 2016 ?

Budget shortfalls.

I found one article that said there was a small increase in school enrollment, as kindergartners entered the system. It also said rig workers tended to be 2-week on and 2-week off, and not necessarily from the state. I met a work who was on his way from Shreveport for a 2-week shift, and was getting 100 hours per week, which with overtime would be equivalent to 130 hours. But production workers were more local.

Another article used IRS data that showed the average taxpayer moving to North Dakota between 2014 and 2015 experienced a 26% increase in income, the highest in the country. All states other than California showed an improvement for in-movers. If you move to California, you will see a loss in income plus impossible housing costs.

North Dakota still has one of the lowest unemployment rates, but that may be because population matches employment opportunities. North Dakota can be miserable in winter (Williston has a forecast of wind chill of -55 F (-48 C).

North Dakota plummeted down to 0.1%, Utah was the fastest growing state, 8 states lost population (CT, IL, MS, NY, PA, VT, WV, and WY).

ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.

:o

Interesting that NY lost population ...

()

So much for New York not losing a congressional seat.

FL now has a higher domestic migration gain than TX ...

And NY has the worst domestic migration loss of all states (almost 200K people last year).

As a percentage of the state's population, OR had the biggest domestic migration gain of all states.

NY once again the worst loss.

When it comes to international migration though, DC, MA and NY had the biggest gains - MT had the smallest international gain.

When both domestic and international migration are combined, the results show that FL, NV and OR had the biggest gains, while WY, IL and ND had the biggest losses.

UT and ND had the highest birth rates last year, NH and ME the lowest.

UT also had the lowest death rate, WV the highest.

Despite ND's economic collapse over the past year, 3 states actually had a higher domestic outmigration rate than ND:

NY
IL
CT

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year (https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=166668.msg4837582#msg4837582). CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

Based on muon's model, states won by Trump would gain 2 EV after the 2020 Census, while Hillary states would lose 2.

Using Obama 2012, Obama states would lose 3, Romney states gain 3.

States with high population growth mostly trended to Hillary, while virtually all states that lost population last year (except IL) trended to Trump.

That is pretty similar to Austria: In regions with high population growth, the Green VdB did well - but (periphery) regions with slow growth or losses voted for Hofer.

If Austria were a US state, it would:

* be the 12th biggest state (after NJ - with 8.78 million people)
* have the 5th highest numerical population increase (after TX, FL, CA and WA - at 116.000 people)
* have the 11th highest percentage population growth (tied with SC at 1.35%)
* have the 4th lowest birth rate (9.9/1000, after NH, ME and VT)
* rank 21st when it comes to the death rate (9.0/1000)
* have the 4th highest migration surplus (tied with WA)
* have the highest international migration surplus

I'd also like to add:

* 14th largest clustering of people around Tender's house, particularly the basement area.

Is there any set date when the county estimates come out?

They come out in March, I don't know if there's a public date yet.

NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

Here are the relevant components:
Births +237K
Deaths -161K
Natural increase +76K

International migration +118K
Domestic migration -191K
Net migration -73K

Total population change -2K

Note that's the sum of natural change and migration is a 3K increase not the -2K decrease that's being reported. According to the CB the change "includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/glossary.html."

In any case the largest factor in the decline in NY is the net migration to other states.

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs

I would guess that, as in the past, the main cause is continued decline in upstate (both urban and rural) due to poor economic conditions and undesirable weather, along with stagnation of growth (or possibly even decline) in outer suburban NYC counties like Suffolk and Orange. NYC itself is still growing at a good clip relative to other large cities.

IL would have to lose at least 200K through the rest of the decade to lose a second CD. That's a much faster pace than losses have occurred so far, and short of stopping legal immigration (not just illegal immigration), it's hard to see IL lose that much in the next 3+ years.

It goes that FL-29 is the last seat to be added, then AZ-10 second to last, etc, then IL-17 is the fifth to last.   So the bottom five are

431:  IL-17
432:  TX-39
433: CA-53
434: AZ-10
435: FL-29

So for Illinois to lose a seat, it would "currently" mean the other four either passed IL or all five dropped further down the list, replaced by other states.

So, California might lose a congressional district?

It's kind of on the bubble for both gaining and losing a seat I guess.  A fairly small difference in growth rate can be the difference between x+1 seats and x-1 seats in a state with as many current seats (x) as California.

There is little reason for Montana's population to collapse.  Montana's growth isn't one-tenth as dependent on oil as North Dakota's.  Besides, the portion of eastern Montana near North Dakota is sparsely populated.  Its oil patch cities are few and far between - Sidney and perhaps Glendive, but even categorizing Glendive as an oil patch city is a stretch. 

:)

Through 2016 there have been the following changes.

Florida +1 to 28.
North Carolina +1 to 14
Oregon +1 to 6
Texas +1 to 37

Illinois -1 to 17
Michigan -1 to 13
Minnesota -1 to 7
Pennsylvania -1 to 17

Were this Australia, a redistribution would have occurred, but this would have been in 2015 or earlier. There were no changes this year.

Projected additional changes by 2020:

Arizona +1 to 10
Colorado +1 to 8
Florida +1 (more) to 29 *** This is a change ***
Texas +2 to 39

Alabama -1 to 6
New York -1 to 26
Ohio -1 to 15
Rhode Island -1 to 1
West Virginia -1 to 2

California 0 to 53 *** This is a change ***

States get a proportional share of the representatives. A state that grows at the decennial national growth rate (10% for 2000-2010, 7.6% estimated for 2010-2020) will maintain its representation - subject to collective rounding.

California can go from 52.5/435 to 53.5/435 of the population with an increase of 1.9% in population relative to that of the country. So a 9.5% increase would add one representative, a 5.7% increase would subtract one representative.

But you also have to consider rounding. California can spread any error around among 53 districts. For the past two decades the overall distribution has been favorable to rounding up. California was entitled to less than 52.5 districts, but got a favorable rounding. In 2010, CA, FL, MN, TX, and WA all got favorable rounding.

By 2020, it is estimated that only FL will get a favorable rounding.

So California might get rounded from 52.3 to 53 one census; and from 52.7 to 52 the next.

Another factor is that the Census Bureau revises its estimates.

In 2015, the estimate of the 2015 population was 39.144M.

In 2016, the estimate of the 2015 population was 38.994M.
In 2016, the estimate of the 2016 population was 39.250M.

Based on the 2015 and 2016 vintage estimates California only grew 0.27%.
Based on 2016 vintage estimates the increase was 0.66%.

While growth has slowed, it was not as severe as suggested by two different vintages.

Williston is a long way from anywhere. The closet city with 100,000+ cities is Regina, which is closer than Billings and Fargo. Regina is also the closest capital.

There is so little population base in the area that Minot and Bismarck have also had considerable growth this decade. You might be able to commute from Minot at least for a few months until you found an apartment or mobile home closer.

It appears that traditional growth areas in the West are having accelerated growth, with both the 1st and 2nd derivatives positive in WA, OR, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT and CO.

The most dramatic effect has been in Oregon which has dawdled along below 6 seats for some time. They made the 2020 projection for a gain in 2015; and actually would have achieved it in 2016.

Based on the 2016 vintage estimates:

2011: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1; MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2012: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2013: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

West Virginia has turned negative and declined for the past four years. It, in effect, dropped faster than Alabama.

2014: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1, TX+1; MN-1, PA-1

2015: AZ+1, CA+1, CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3, VA=0; AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, TX+1; IL-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in the West added three seats in Arizona, California, and Oregon, at the expense of Alabama, New York, and Virginia. In the case of Alabama and Virginia it was a case of being caught by faster gainers, while New York has had a substantial decline in growth (and its projected population for 2020).

2016: AZ+1, CO+1, FL+2, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3; CA=0, VA=0;  AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in Florida gives it a second seat by the end of the decade while the growth rate in California is declining. Oregon actually gains its 6th seat, one year after being projected to gain a seat.

Wait, IL might lose 2 CDs?

Even losing one would be sort of a victory for NY since it'd be the first time it didn't lose multiple since peaking at 45 in the '30s and '40s.

Illinois was entitled to 18.043 representatives in 2010, and is projected at 16.710 in 2020.

For 2000 and 2010, larger states with a fraction less than 0.5 were being rounded upward. But it appears that this tendency may be balancing out. Arizona and Florida are increasing their growth, so that a projection that assumes a constant rate of increase will underestimate the population, so AZ-10 and FL-29 will likely pass IL-17 by 2020.

For MT-2 or AL-7 etc. to pass IL-17 would require an even larger decrease for Illinois. Illinois has been negative for the past 3 years, and the rate of decline is increasing .

So it appears to be in the realm of possibility, but perhaps not likelihood.

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

ND lost 4,700 people in terms of migration(international and domestic combined) from 2015-2016.

International Immigration was enough from 2010/2011-2013/2014 of Census Periods to offset Domestic Migration Losses during that time period. However in both Census Periods of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016  International Migration was not enough to offset Domestic Migration during that time period.

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

They'd need the numbers well before that. The electors are selected at state party conventions before the national conventions. The follow up Census for those who didn't respond isn't done until the summer, but by then state conventions have already occurred.

I don't think that would work either,  the candidates need to know what district their primary will be in well in advance of the actual election.   

States that passed each other in the population rankings in 2016:

Tennessee passed Indiana for 16th most populous state

Colorado passed Minnesota for 21st most populous state

Utah passed Mississippi for 31st most populous state

Nevada passed Kansas for most 34 most populous state(I think that happened this year.)

PA lost 7,700 people in terms of population overall (taking into account international and domestic migration, births, deaths) and Illinois lost 37,5000 in terms of population overall in the 2015-2016 Census Period.

Could NC pass GA in the next few years in population?

GA and NC are both growing at a rate of 1.0%/year. The were 162K apart in pop in 2010 an GA got a favorable rounding to give it one more seat than NC. In the 2016 estimate GA is 172K ahead of NC so GA is actually gaining slightly faster and should stay ahead of NC.

If they maintain the same rate of growth for the whole decade GA will be 181K ahead of NC for the 2020 census. However, this time GA will round down and NC will round up so NC gains a seat to equalize with GA.

In other news, Hudson seems to be on track to fall a tad below 6,000 (excluding the prisoner population). No, I have not crunched the numbers - it was just an eyeball thing. On my block, since the 2010 census, I suspect that the drop has been around 40% - just massive. But I am bring a new unit on line on my block. But I see no abatement to the trend. If anything it is accelerating, and since the local school district is so horrible, the new folks moving in, into refurbished housing, or who refurbish, convert multi family dwellings to single family, etc., are almost always folks with no kids, or with kids who don't live at home (they have achieved the age of majority). So Hudson is moving slowly towards more well to do folks with no kids in school, or in private school, or folks with kids, who are poor.

Quite a toxic combo really, and replicated across the Fruited Plain. We have a problem! Who knew?

Basically what demographers predicted to happen by the 1990s is only now starting to occur.  An irreversible trend of fast aging and population decline for the vast majority of the U.S.  Already the winners and losers among big cities are being picked... Denver, Seattle, Houston, Dallas win... Cleveland, Detroit, St. Louis lose...

Upstate New York is in for it... without a new baby boom.. because people tend to have kids in place (as opposed to attracting immigrants)

The number of representatives take effect with the term beginning on January 3, 2023. If there is a special election in 2022 to fill a vacancy in the house, the old boundaries will be used, even if a primary for the new boundaries is held at the same time. Some states with odd-year legislative elections may use the new census data for 2011 elections.

Based on the 2000 census data, the population of the Bush states and the Gore states was extremely close. Had the 2000 apportion been used, Bush would have won the electoral vote based on winning the greater number of states carried and the two senate-based electors. This would have been true even if thousands of representatives had been apportioned.

The electoral vote was as close as it was, only because it was based on 10+ year old data.

It appears to be March 23, with an embargoed release on March 21.

What are NC's chances of getting a 15th district in 2030?

As I noted above, GA is maintaining its lead over NC this decade. If that continues into the next decade then GA gets its 15th CD before NC. The question you would have to ask is what conditions are needed for both GA and NC to gain in 2030. That requires some guesses about changes in growth in places like TX and FL, and how much the Rust Belt slows compared to the rest of the US. That's hard so far out without a lot of other projection data that isn't in the basic estimate.

I didn't get what you were saying in that last paragraph, about having kids "in place" as opposed to attracting immigrants.  I'm admitting to it as from your overall post, I imagine it will be something worth "getting", once I do.

Living in New England, it's the May release of county subdivision and place (like municipality) data that I'm anxiously awaiting.  In terms of what legislative districts might look like, the county projections are most useful indicators at the ends of the state and less so in the middle (population-wise), which is pretty much where I am.

Pretty unlikely.

They are having virtually the same growth.

AL = Loser; Montgomery and Birmingham shrinking
AZ = Winner; Area around Phoenix exploding
CA = Winner; Mexicans entering state
CO = Winner
FL = Winner; Cubans + Old people moving to state
GA = Winner; Atlanta growing
IL = Loser; R.I.P. Chicago
MA = Loser; Boston shrinking
MI = Loser; R.I.P. Detroit
MO = Loser; R.I.P. St. Louis
NV = Winner; Las Vegas exploding
NY = Loser; people getting the heck out
etc.

I'm not sure I understand this post, but Boston is growing in population faster than it has in decades.

In a lot of those cases it's actually the rural/small town area's decline that's causing them to be "losers".    NYC and Boston in particular are actually doing pretty good.   Upstate NY is where the population loss is happening.   

Same goes for Illinois,  Chicago itself might be losing people (very recently) but the downstate area is where the real loses are happening as well.

This makes me think the last time you did your research was 1997.

These areas don't attract immigrants or domestic migrants because there are not jobs available and they might be seeking nicer climes.

But if people started having more children, which can happen for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the economy, it would increase demand for products and services which would push up demand for productivity from the parents, increasing job security.  The aggregate effect is a more vibrant economy and community.

Reinforcing this would be that families with children try to avoid picking up and moving far away.  A baby boom would likely decrease mobility and there would be a desire for companies to invest where they were rather than somewhere that immigrants or domestic migrants want to go.

At this point, we are so far along in the aging and deindustrialization process, that this would likely not fix the situation... but it would slow the decline.

New England has a top heavy age structure because fertility there is low.  In 15 years the largest cohorts of people will be in their early 70s and without a major change in migration, the population will be declining quickly.  And the problem is that unlike with growth, which can be directed into neat, new subdivisions one at a time... shrinkage is piecemeal... one older couple dies out down the street, another across the street... now you have two empty houses with no chance of being filled again... and the lawns become overgrown, etc.  Empty lots slowly replace the once bustling, tidy neighborhood... this drives the remaining people out... to places like Florida.

No the Hispanic Population Boom in CA was from 1970-2010.
MA-Boston is growing by the way. Its Western Massachusetts that's not gaining much population or maybe losing population.

Thanks.  Your explanation was definitely worth asking for, as I expected.

Sorry if this has already been mentioned, but where could I find congressional district data/populations in 2010, and also in 2016 (or most recent estimate)?

The Census Bureau American Fact Finder.

There was a special compilation of Census Data for the new congressional districts (113th session was after redistricting) (they won't be correct for Florida or Virginia, until they get updated they will be 115th)

The American Community Survey has estimates for congressional districts. Be sure to use 1-year 2015. Otherwise, you get blended data over 5 years - better for social characteristics since there is more data, but less so for a snapshot population. You could get 1-year data for previous years and try to project a trend line.

Somehow it's too big for my computer's memory. Is there another way; I'm mainly looking for actual population estimates for CDs in 2010 and 2015.

I doubt that.

Go to American Fact Finder. Do advanced search show all.

Topic > Years > 2010
Topic > Data Set > 2010 113th Congress 100% Data

Geographies (show all radio button)
Geographies > Congressional Districts > All Congressional Districts for United States

Topics > People > Basic Count/Estimate > Total Population
Check P1, View or Download

========

Clear All Selections

Topics > Year > 2015
(no need to select data set since there is only one for 2015)
Geographies > Congressional Districts
Select all congressional districts in United States
Topic > People > Basic Count/Estimate > Total Population

Check total count, using the 2015 1-year estimate.

That works now, thanks.

2016 County Estimates will be released on Thursday, March 23 .

It'll be interesting to see if my county (Lake) declined yet again.

I want to see if the (until recently) fast-growing oil counties, like McKenzie and Williams, ND, have started to lose population or are just growing more slowly.

Based on the state data it will be close.

It looks like they are losing:


()

When do the county subdivision estimates come out?  June?

May.

Technically it is incorporated place and minor civil division (i.e. legal entities).

Great! 

Hopefully, I'll find the time to update the maps I made last year, like the 2014-2015 Percentage Change Map (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/1404d830-21fd-11e6-9f99-0e674067d321/public_map) for those incorporated places, minor civil divisions (and CDPs?).

Incorporated places only.

The American Community Survey does produce estimates for other census geography down to the Block Group level. The sampling used for the ACS is designed to produce statistically valid results for such small areas - if you use the 5-year sample. So for CDP's you could get an 2011-2015 estimate. Perhaps not so useful for population total, but useful for other social characteristics.

For small population cities (a couple of hundred) the census uses a higher sampling rate for the ACS.

The ACS also produces results for things like congressional districts and legislative districts. For some of these, you may be able to use one-year samples. The census bureau knows where their samples are from and they could produce estimates for a census block, but a 4-household sample for a block with 20 houses is not a very good sample, and would break confidentiality anyhow. But they can aggregate samples for larger areas. For example, they have produced CVAP estimates by race for various congressional district plans in Texas.

According to Census' calendar, the incorporated place and minor civil division population estimates will be released to the public on Thursday, May 25.  It looks like there will be an embargoed release to the media on Tuesday, May 23.

Census has released their November 2016 Voting and Registration Supplement (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/time-series/demo/voting-and-registration/p20-580.html?intcmp=s1_voting).

From what I've read elsewhere on the Internet but not independently verified, overall Hispanic turnout was slightly down in 2016 versus 2012, even though more Hispanics voted due to Hispanic VAP growth.

2016 city and town population estimates come out on Thursday (an embargoed press release and graphic supposedly went out to the media today).  Any predictions or things you want to see?

I'm interested in population declines in Western North Dakota, and how much Upstate New York Cities proper have lost population over the past year.

Prediction: Seattle tops 700k. It'll be tough, but July 2015-2016 saw around ~7,500 units delivered, a similar, if not slightly greater amount than the previous period. 2016-2017, 2017-2018, and 2018-2019 should be nuts though, with ~10k and ~13k expected in 2017 and 2018 respectively.

I'd also like to see if growth has picked up in Tacoma and Spokane.

Things to look for:
Phoenix passes Philadelphia (4k difference)
San Francisco passes Jacksonville (4k difference)
Columbus passes Indianapolis (3k difference)
DC passes Detroit (5k difference), as Detroit is still declining

The embargo on the city estimates has been lifted, and various news websites are filing stories on the population estimates.  But the database and press release isn't available yet on census.gov.

Here's an alternate link to search for city results from Cleveland.com (http://www.cleveland.com/datacentral/index.ssf/2017/05/2016_census_population_estimat.html).

Yes, Seattle topped 700,000 residents.

The Top 10 U.S. Cities (http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/phoenix/2017/05/25/phoenix-overtakes-philadelphia-5th-largest-u-s-city/344047001/)
1. New York: 8,537,673
2. Los Angeles: 3,976,322
3. Chicago: 2,704,958
4. Houston: 2,303,482
5. Phoenix: 1,615,017
6. Philadelphia: 1,567,872
7. San Antonio: 1,492,510
8. San Diego: 1,406,630
9. Dallas: 1,317,929
10. San Jose: 1,025,350

Census' press release is here (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2017/cb17-81-population-estimates-subcounty.html#fastest-growing).  The rest of their press kit is here (https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-kits/2017/population-estimates-subcounty.html). The actual data will be available in the morning, before 10AM.

From the press release:



Phoenix passed Philadelphia.
San Francisco did not pass Jacksonville.
Columbus passed Indianapolis.
DC passed Detroit, which is still declining.  Detroit reportedly fell to 23 or 24, depending on which newspaper you believe.

Thanks for the data scrounging! Very happy to see Seattle reach over 700k. Back in 2010, no one thought the city would reach that mark before 2020, let alone 2016!

Has the data been posted yet?

Nashville passed Memphis to become the largest city in Tennessee.

Charleston passed Columbia to become the largest city in South Carolina.

It's always surprised me that Charleston and Nashville weren't previously the largest

After growing by 23K in the first 3 years of the decade Chicago has joined the rest of IL with population losses, falling by 14K since 2013, 8K just in last estimate year (7/1/15 - 7/1/16).

I didn't see the raw data anywhere

Here ya go! (https://www.census.gov/data/tables/2016/demo/popest/total-cities-and-towns.html)

#23, apparently. Boston also passed Detroit. Still ahead of Nashville with a gap big enough that Nashville probably won't pass Detroit next year (but obviously will in 2019).

So the number of capitals that are the largest remains constant at 17.

Possible future losses would be Cheyenne (to Casper) and Charleston (to Huntington), and a reversal Nashville (to Memphis).

Possible reversals Columbia (from Charleston), Hartford (from Bridgeport and New Haven), and Madison (from Milwaukee)

I've made my maps using the 2016 Estimates Data.  Please let me know if there are any obvious errors. There may be a separate post analyzing trends in the future:

2015-2016 Percentage Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/f83928f7-f42c-4ba7-a659-4c4502f5d84b/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/19fb16fa-41d7-11e7-8f7d-0e05a8b3e3d7/public_map)
2010-2016 Percentage Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/2179fb11-c942-4958-b0e8-147324cb395a/public_map) (takes into account annexations and the like)

2015-2016 Numerical Change in  Cities, Towns, and County Remainders Population (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/b2bcd2b7-6090-4cdd-9d5d-04353b466967/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Census (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/3e9b0441-a862-46e8-a23c-7065e1c6e568/public_map)
2010-2016 Numerical Change versus 2010 Estimates Base (https://cinyc.carto.com/viz/cdeddf5d-ac4c-45e8-87b8-56860b43e1d5/public_map)

Wow these are awesome, thank you.

I'm a little biased but I can't help but notice how Florida sticks out so much in the 2015-2016 and 2010-2016 percentage change map. Central Florida both Orlando and Tampa are seeing huge influxes of population. It will be interesting how this changes things politically.

Cinyc, in Arkansas, what are you going to do with College City located in Lawrence County.  It consolidated with Walnut Ridge in May of last year.  It was in the final phases of occurring when the data was estimated.

Could you possibly combine the two on one of your maps to show that this occurred?

Do annexations cause "Balance of X County" to drop? Looking at Dekalb, GA in particular.

In the 2010 census version of the map, yes.   But not in the version versus 2010 population estimates, which controls for annexations and the like.  IIRC, the balance of Dekalb, GA dropped because of the creation of a new city.  We had the same issue in the 2010-15 version of the map.

I could estimate things manually when I get a chance, but if Census hasn't caught up with the change yet, I'm not going to change the shapefile.  I used the most recent Census shapefile for each type (County, MCD and Place).

It occurred over a year ago, so it may not be in the shapefile for 2016.  It defently should be in the 2017 version though if they ever release it.

The combined entity gained 3 residents from 2015 to 2016.  Its 2016 population is 5180.  It has lost 3.08% of its population from 2010, or 165 residents.

If census hasn't gotten around to fixing the shapefile, I'm not going to change the map.  It would take more work to do that than you think.

Edited to add:  Census is aware of the consolidation (it made their list of entity changes), but it didn't take effect until January 1, 2017.  The estimates are 2016 estimates - so it makes sense to show the entities as they existed in 2016, not 2017.  I'm sure Census will update their 2017 shapefiles to reflect the consolidation.

In the 2010 census, the State House "quotas" of Maine's largest municipalities (those over 0.9/151 of Maine's population in any one of the three following tables, plus Old Town which would meet that criteria if you added in the Penobscot Reservation where the part where people live is right next to Old Town (they basically make up a State House district now)), were as follows (with instances where the "Estimates Base" (EB) yields a different quota than the official census numbers noted in parentheses):

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5245 (State Senate quota* 1.7441, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.1596 (EB 4.1595) (State Senate quota* 0.9641, between 0.95 "cutoff" and 1.0 mark)
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.7557 (EB 3.7554)
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
South Portland city 2.8421
Auburn city 2.6208 (EB 2.6204)
Biddeford city 2.4186
Sanford city 2.3642 (EB 2.3640)
Brunswick town 2.3051
Augusta city 2.1753 (EB 2.1748)
Scarborough town 2.1506
Saco city 2.1009 (EB 2.1030)
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
=2.0 mark=
Westbrook city 1.9886
Windham town 1.9326 (EB 1.9321)
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Gorham town 1.8621 (EB 1.8620)
Waterville city 1.7872
York town 1.4242 (EB 1.4231)
Falmouth town 1.2714
Kennebunk town 1.2275 (EB 1.2274)
Orono town 1.1779 (EB 1.1772)
Standish town 1.1224 (EB 1.1222)
Presque Isle city 1.1017
Wells town 1.0900
Kittery town 1.0788
Brewer city 1.0779
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0248
Lisbon town 1.0241 (EB 1.0242)
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9985
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9803 (EB 0.9793)
Skowhegan town 0.9763 (EB 0.9766)
Bath city 0.9678
[Old Town city (0.8912 (EB 0.8919)) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0693)] 0.9605 (EB 0.9612)
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Yarmouth town 0.9491
Caribou city 0.9309
Buxton town 0.9133 (EB 0.9129)
Freeport town 0.8956
...
Gray town 0.8822
...
Ellsworth city 0.8799
...
Cumberland town 0.8197 (EB 0.8187)

The largest municipalities as and according to the 2016 estimates and their State House "quotas" are as follows:

=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
Portland city 7.5912 (State Senate quota* 1.7595, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.35 (7*1.05)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0986 (State Senate quota* 0.949996, 0.14 people below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.6273
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9006
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.6025
Biddeford city 2.4226
Sanford city 2.3745
Brunswick town 2.3413
Scarborough town 2.2708
Saco city 2.1789
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0974
Westbrook city 2.0869
Windham town 2.0417
=2.0 mark=
Gorham town 1.9711
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
Waterville city 1.8606
York town 1.4683
Falmouth town 1.3725
Kennebunk town 1.2838
Orono town 1.2749
Wells town 1.1549
Standish town 1.1538
Kittery town 1.0937
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0580
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Brewer city 1.0328
Presque Isle city 1.0327
Lisbon town 1.0032
=1.0 mark=
Old Orchard Beach town 0.9990
Topsham town 0.9964
Yarmouth town 0.9705
Freeport town 0.9555
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Bath city 0.9416
Skowhegan town 0.9415
Buxton town 0.9294
Gray town 0.9203
[Old Town city (0.8526) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0673)] 0.9199
Ellsworth city 0.8972
Cumberland town 0.8895
...
Caribou city 0.8773

Taking the "Estimates base" from April 1, 2010 (usually within a few people of the official numbers) shown in the same Census Bureau tables showing the above estimates, and adding to it the population gains (negative for losses) from that base to July 1, 2016 multiplied by 10/6.25 (I use a linear progression rather than exponential as it has the benefit of municipal projections being the same as county projections), the following are the projected 2020 State House "quotas" for all municipalities (in descending order) with projected (or 2010) quotas above 0.9000:

=8.0 mark=
Portland city 7.6310 (State Senate quota* 1.7688, between 1.05 and 1.9 "cutoffs")
=7.6 (8*0.95)  "cutoff"=
...
=4.2 (4*1.05) "cutoff"=
Lewiston city 4.0621 (State Senate quota* 0.9415, below 0.95 "cutoff")
=4.0 mark=
=3.8 (4*0.95) "cutoff"=
Bangor city 3.5508
=3.15 (3*1.05) "cutoff"=
=3.0 mark=
South Portland city 2.9356
=2.85 (3*0.95) "cutoff"=
Auburn city 2.5918
Biddeford city 2.4250
Sanford city 2.3809
Brunswick town 2.3630
Scarborough town 2.3426
Saco city 2.2243
Westbrook city 2.1457
Windham town 2.1072
=2.1 (2*1.05) "cutoff"=
Augusta city 2.0511
Gorham town 2.0364
=2.0 mark=
Waterville city 1.9044
=1.9 (2*0.95) "cutoff"=
York town 1.4953
Falmouth town 1.4328
Orono town 1.3333
Kennebunk town 1.3174
Wells town 1.1938
Standish town 1.1727
Kittery town 1.1026
Cape Elizabeth town 1.0778
=1.05 "cutoff"=
Old Orchard Beach town 1.0108
Brewer city 1.0059
=1.0 mark=
Topsham town 0.9951
Presque Isle city 0.9914
Freeport town 0.9912
Lisbon town 0.9907
Yarmouth town 0.9834
=0.95 "cutoff"=
Gray town 0.9431
Buxton town 0.9392
Cumberland town 0.9318
Bath city 0.9260
Skowhegan town 0.9206
Ellsworth city 0.9075
[Old Town city (0.8291) + Penobscot Indian Island Reservation (0.0660)] 0.8951
...
Caribou city 0.8453

*assuming 35 Senators.  With 33 or 31, Lewiston would be too small for a Senate district even under the 2010 Census figures.  Portland would still be comfortably between 1.05 and 1.9 State Senate quotas.

Wow, I wouldn't have done this if I didn't enjoy the result of having done it, but that took some work, even though I created the spreadsheet by copying and modifying an existing one and did the same thing with this post.