Census Estimates for 2008 -> 2010 Apportionment

[Tender Branson]

Wow, that not that much more needed. If the economy start to get better NC could see that growth. I guess we will have to see.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

Well, NC is growing fastter then GA and SC. You would think NC would get another seat, if both GA and SC got/getting one.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/census-bureau-r.html

According to these estimates, Georgia grew by 18.3% from 2000-2008, while North Carolina grew by only 14.6% during the same period. SC grew by only 11.7%, right behind North Carolina. I'm surprised, because I thought NC was growing faster than GA too.

Last year it did. GA's growth was faster than NC's at least from 1970-2007 ...

[Tender Branson]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

[Tender Branson]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

Well, lets look at the July 2007 to July 2008 numbers first. Domestic Migration to other US states seems to be similar in the reports of both agencies, but they differ on International Migration.

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 329.000
International Migration: 242.000
Domestic Migration: -135.000
Total Population Growth: 436.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 325.000
International Migration: 196.000
Domestic Migration: -144.000
Total Population Growth: 379.000

Now a look at the broader picture, from the April 2000 Census to Mid-2008:

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 2.555.000
International Migration: 1.804.000
Domestic Migration: -84.000
Total Population Growth: 4.275.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 2.549.000
International Migration: 1.826.000
Domestic Migration: -1.379.000
Total Population Growth: 2.996.000

So, the difference between the 2 institutes is almost entirely due to a discrepancy in the number of domestic migration numbers in the years 2000-2007.