EDS Releases New Reapportionment Estimates

[Smash255]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

How they got that data based off previous estimates seems a bit odd.

For example in Florida the estimated population difference between 09 and 2010 increased by 380,000, that is the 2nd largest yearly increase this decade (03-04 had an increase in 395,000 according to estimates) and between double and triple the increase of the past few years.

NY would be seeing an increase of just 2,000 from 09.  75,000, 35,000 and 66,000 have been the yearly increases the last three years

[Smash255]

Here is the actual EDS report, including the population estimates from ESRI.

http://www.sos.wa.gov/_assets/elections/NR_Appor2010ESRI_finalwTableMap.pdf

How they got that data based off previous estimates seems a bit odd.

For example in Florida the estimated population difference between 09 and 2010 increased by 380,000, that is the 2nd largest yearly increase this decade (03-04 had an increase in 395,000 according to estimates) and between double and triple the increase of the past few years.

NY would be seeing an increase of just 2,000 from 09.  75,000, 35,000 and 66,000 have been the yearly increases the last three years

I think the Census Bureau estimates and the ESRI estimates are independent of each other.

The only connection is that EDS has practice in converting state population totals into apportionment estimates AND disseminating the results in a manner that newspapers, etc. can easily pick up and produce articles.

If the Census Bureau included estimates of error, one could produce probability estimates of apportionment.  It is really not correct to say that Missouri will lose a seat, when it would be better to say that it has an X% chance of losing a seat.

The 2009 ERSI estimates match up to the 2009 census estimates.

[Smash255]

The 2009 ERSI estimates match up to the 2009 census estimates.

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.


State                ESRI 2010   Est. 2009  Change
Alabama              4,735,593   4,708,708   0.57%
Alaska                 695,751     698,473  -0.39%
Arizona              6,723,229   6,595,778   1.93%
Arkansas             2,923,603   2,889,450   1.18%
California          37,983,948  36,961,664   2.77%
Colorado             5,114,102   5,024,748   1.78%
Connecticut          3,535,787   3,518,288   0.50%
Delaware               893,724     885,122   0.97%
Florida             18,917,612  18,537,969   2.05%
Georgia             10,014,045   9,829,211   1.88%
Hawaii               1,309,580   1,295,178   1.11%
Idaho                1,581,697   1,545,801   2.32%
Illinois            13,089,726  12,910,409   1.39%
Indiana              6,479,832   6,423,113   0.88%
Iowa                 3,057,995   3,007,856   1.67%
Kansas               2,841,378   2,818,747   0.80%
Kentucky             4,339,471   4,314,113   0.59%
Louisiana            4,507,335   4,492,076   0.34%
Maine                1,338,645   1,318,301   1.54%
Maryland             5,730,892   5,699,478   0.55%
Massachusetts        6,555,736   6,593,587  -0.57%
Michigan            10,104,633   9,969,727   1.35%
Minnesota            5,334,772   5,266,214   1.30%
Mississippi          2,996,685   2,951,996   1.51%
Missouri             6,003,689   5,987,580   0.27%
Montana                983,932     974,989   0.92%
Nebraska             1,822,473   1,796,619   1.44%
Nevada               2,748,294   2,643,085   3.98%
New Hampshire        1,329,915   1,324,575   0.40%
New Jersey           8,822,373   8,707,739   1.32%
New Mexico           2,080,039   2,009,671   3.50%
New York            19,543,731  19,541,453   0.01%
North Carolina       9,552,054   9,380,884   1.82%
North Dakota           662,194     646,844   2.37%
Ohio                11,605,005  11,542,645   0.54%
Oklahoma             3,720,244   3,687,050   0.90%
Oregon               3,865,839   3,825,657   1.05%
Pennsylvania        12,574,407  12,604,767  -0.24%
Rhode Island         1,058,412   1,053,209   0.49%
South Carolina       4,649,749   4,561,242   1.94%
South Dakota           827,263     812,383   1.83%
Tennessee            6,366,430   6,296,254   1.11%
Texas               25,268,853  24,782,302   1.96%
Utah                 2,841,749   2,784,572   2.05%
Vermont                626,078     621,760   0.69%
Virginia             7,965,681   7,882,590   1.05%
Washington           6,756,150   6,664,195   1.38%
West Virginia        1,842,096   1,819,777   1.23%
Wisconsin            5,741,617   5,654,774   1.54%
Wyoming                548,154     544,270   0.71%

The 2009 estimates for ERSI and the Census bureau were exactly the same, the ERSI estimated gain between 2009 and 2010 was the 2nd highest yearly gain of the decade, and triple the gain between 2008 and 2009.

[Smash255]

Do they? 

It looks like the extra seat for Florida and Texas is based on ESRI estimating a larger gain than the Census Bureau, over the decade, and the loss for New York is based on ESRI and the Census Bureau matching.  Similarly the Minnesota/Missouri switch is based on ESRI adding about 1% more to Minnesota.

The 2009 estimates for ERSI and the Census bureau were exactly the same, the ERSI estimated gain between 2009 and 2010 was the 2nd highest yearly gain of the decade, and triple the gain between 2008 and 2009.

Where are the 2009 ESRI estimates?  The ESRI estimates are based on small areas that the Census Bureau doesn't produce estimates for.  Do you really think that ESRI started with the 2009 Census Bureau estimates, and found a 2.8% increase for California?

Ahh my bad I was wrong.  I thought both the 09 and 2010 reapportionment estimates were based off that years ESRI's estimates, and was comparing your link to that from the census bureau's website.  They were obviously the same, but I thought your link for 09 was labeled ESRI not Census.