Reapportionment 2012

[Brittain33]

This New York Times article references a Queens College (CUNY) study projecting a loss of two seats for New York.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/12/27/as-the-census-turns-new-yorks-representation-shrinks/

Has anyone found this study? Is it a new release that they were holding off on until they could plug the 2007 census estimates into it, or is it a rehash of the study issued in 2006 that fueled the latest round of discussions on the internet?

There's nothing new about this conclusion, but if new numbers have been run, we might have a projection for states on the knife-edge before like Minnesota and Michigan.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

Sadly, it seems New Jersey and Massachusetts losing seats is a foregone conclusion, so I'm viewing the whole process with a sense of dread, not anticipation.

[muon2]

My annual analysis and projection of the next reapportionment is located here.

[TheresNoMoney]

This New York Times article references a Queens College (CUNY) study projecting a loss of two seats for New York.

Yep, states like New York, Massachusetts, Pennsvlvania, Ohio, Iowa, Missouri, and Louisiana will all lose seats.

States that are gaining seats are mainly in the southwest: Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, Texas, as well as Florida.

[Brittain33]

My annual analysis and projection of the next reapportionment is located here.

Thanks! I'm peeved I didn't find that board before, and appreciate the redirect from here.

[Padfoot]

Hmmm...I'm happy that I can vote in a less-insanely-gerrymandered district back in TX in 2012...but it chills me to think about the added political weight of the state.

IMO more districts usually = more gerrymandering not less.

[jokerman]

Hmmm...I'm happy that I can vote in a less-insanely-gerrymandered district back in TX in 2012...but it chills me to think about the added political weight of the state.

IMO more districts usually = more gerrymandering not less.

It contributes to making the process possible.  Arkansas, for example, cannot be gerrymandered because of its small, homogenous population.

[memphis]

Hmmm...I'm happy that I can vote in a less-insanely-gerrymandered district back in TX in 2012...but it chills me to think about the added political weight of the state.

IMO more districts usually = more gerrymandering not less.

It contributes to making the process possible.  Arkansas, for example, cannot be gerrymandered because of its small, homogenous population.

Never say never. I can see a court ruling requiring Arkansas to produce a majority black district that starts like a snake on whichever side of Little Rock is the black side and then expands to cover the entierty of the state's boundary with the Mississippi River. Not saying this is a good idea necessarily, just that it could be done.

[SamInTheSouth]

Just like Watt's district in North Carolina.  That thing is retarded.  I don't understand how that district gets passed a court.