Apportionment fun

[jimrtex]

Montana will not get another seat.

Montana came close to getting another seat this time patrick.

Montana was even closer in 1990 when they lost the 2nd seat and sued over the apportionment method (presidential trivia: the lawyers who argued before the USSC were Racicot and Starr).

During the 1990's Montana gained 12.9%, while the country as whole gained 13.2%, meaning that Montana was losing relative share at about -0.3%.  This might not be hard to make up, but it is not guaranteed by any means.

[jimrtex]

The last few seats I apportioned were:
432 - CA 55
433 - PA 18
434 - MN 8
435 - MI 15

The next in line were
NY 28
IL 19
AL 7

Then after a gap
CA 56
MD 9
OH 17
TX 36

The curiousity is that the states at the edge are all losing seats (with California bracketing them).

In other words, there are 11 clear gains and 8 clear losses, and then 6 fighting to decide which 3 stay get to stay.

The number of representatives for California will tend to be volatile.  With over the difference between 53/435 and 54/435 is less than 2%,
meaning that California can on average gain a seat with a rate of increase that is less than 2% greater than the national average.  On the other hand, to increase from 2 to 3 representatives, a state will have to increase 73% faster than the national average (a state with a population a bit larger than Montana, or with a bit less than Nebraska, would still get 2 representatives).

With about 1/8 of the population, California will be roughly every 8th step on the priority list, with each priority value about 2% less than the previous.  Whether there are 10 other states between consecutive California seats of 6 states is pretty much random.  Other states may occasionally be near the edge (North Carolina and Utah in 2000), but by 2010 they should be well above that level.  California will always be nearby.  Sometimes to get an extra seat as in 2000, sometimes to lose a seat.

[jimrtex]

What if the Apportionment was based on voters, not population?

The following is based on the 2000 election (just because they are more complete).   14 states gain, with big pickups in the midwest.   Losses in 6 states, especially concentrated in California and Texas with their large immigrant populations.


Alabama              7
Alaska               1
Arizona              6
Arkansas             4
California          45
Colorado             7
Connecticut          6
Delaware             1
District of Columbia 1
Florida             25
Georgia             11
Hawaii               2
Idaho                2
Illinois            20
Indiana              9
Iowa                 5
Kansas               4
Kentucky             6
Louisiana            7
Maine                3
Maryland             8
Massachusetts       11
Michigan            18
Minnesota           10
Mississippi          4
Missouri            10
Montana              2
Nebraska             3
Nevada               3
New Hampshire        2
New Jersey          13
New Mexico           3
New York            28
North Carolina      12
North Dakota         1
Ohio                19
Oklahoma             5
Oregon               6
Pennsylvania        20
Rhode Island         2
South Carolina       6
South Dakota         1
Tennessee            9
Texas               27
Utah                 3
Vermont              1
Virginia            11
Washington          10
West Virginia        3
Wisconsin           11
Wyoming              1

[jimrtex]

And based on the 2000 election this would be the apportionment of Congoress and the House of Republicans

(Numbers don't add to 435 due to use of rounding, rather a strict priority list.)


Alabama              6   8
Alaska               1   2
Arizona              6   7
Arkansas             4   4
California          50  39
Colorado             6   8
Connecticut          7   5
Delaware             2   1
District of Columbia 2   1
Florida             25  25
Georgia             10  12
Hawaii               2   1
Idaho                1   3
Illinois            22  17
Indiana              8  11
Iowa                 5   6
Kansas               3   5
Kentucky             5   8
Louisiana            7   8
Maine                3   3
Maryland            10   7
Massachusetts       14   8
Michigan            19  17
Minnesota           10  10
Mississippi          3   5
Missouri            10  10
Montana              1   2
Nebraska             2   4
Nevada               2   3
New Hampshire        2   2
New Jersey          15  11
New Mexico           3   3
New York            35  21
North Carolina      11  14
North Dakota         1   2
Ohio                19  20
Oklahoma             4   6
Oregon               6   6
Pennsylvania        21  20
Rhode Island         2   1
South Carolina       5   7
South Dakota         1   2
Tennessee            8   9
Texas               21  33
Utah                 2   4
Vermont              1   1
Virginia            10  12
Washington          11  10
West Virginia        3   3
Wisconsin           11  11
Wyoming              1   1

[jimrtex]

The following is the projected change in representation between 2000 and 2010 in the House of Representatives (and the Electoral College) if the number of seats was a continuous rather than discrete function.


Alabama          -0.438
Alaska            0.002
Arizona           1.340
Arkansas         -0.173
California        2.163
Colorado          0.487
Connecticut      -0.172
Delaware          0.031
Florida           2.348
Georgia           1.042
Hawaii            0.022
Idaho             0.130
Illinois         -0.850
Indiana          -0.414
Iowa             -0.363
Kansas           -0.252
Kentucky         -0.279
Louisiana        -0.556
Maine            -0.055
Maryland          0.151
Massachusetts    -0.592
Michigan         -0.885
Minnesota        -0.124
Mississippi      -0.269
Missouri         -0.366
Montana          -0.065
Nebraska         -0.134
Nevada            0.871
New Hampshire     0.045
New Jersey       -0.282
New Mexico       -0.028
New York         -1.940
North Carolina    0.393
North Dakota     -0.117
Ohio             -1.357
Oklahoma         -0.254
Oregon            0.102
Pennsylvania     -1.491
Rhode Island     -0.034
South Carolina   -0.005
South Dakota     -0.067
Tennessee        -0.186
Texas             2.645
Utah              0.198
Vermont          -0.041
Virginia          0.314
Washington        0.172
West Virginia    -0.260
Wisconsin        -0.334
Wyoming          -0.035


Projected population for 2010 is based on assuming that the population in each state increased at a constant annual rate between the April 1, 2000 census and the July 1, 2003 Census Bureau estimate, and that the same rate will be sustained until the 2010 census.

The apportionment for a state is based on:

   sqrt ( (P^2/Q^2) + 1/4 )

Where P is the population of the state, and Q is the population per representative (i.e. 50-state population divided by 435).

[jimrtex]

What if the Apportionment was based on voters, not population?

imo that would be a bad idea.  If your state is probably going to go for the other party (ie if you are a democrat in TX or a republican in NY), it's in your best interest not to vote - therefore denying the candidate you don't want to win added electoral votes and, if you're in a state that is likely to have lots of the other party's members as representatives, denying them seats in the House.

He probably meant voters rather than votes.  In the United Kingdom, districts are based numbers of registered electors (registration is more or less mandatory, so it is roughly based on the adult population).

[jimrtex]

This is where I got my numbers. I'd love to get some more recent projections.

http://www.census.gov/population/www/projections/stproj.html

These appear to have been made in 1995.  The schedule says that a new series of projections (based on the 2000 census) will be released in 2005.  A new series of national projections was released this past March.  As a first order correction, you could take the July 1, 2000 projection made in 1995, determine the relative error vs. the July 1, 2000 estimate made after the 2000 census, and apply that to the 2010 estimate.

[jimrtex]

Here's another fun little use for this:  I discovered how much you would have to expand Congress for every state to have at least 2 Congressmen.  We would need 806, and they would distribute like this (with the 2 Senatorial EVs added):
...

Wyoming, of course, gets the final seat.

In this scenario, DC would get a 4th EV.  The 23rd Amendment provides that DC gets the number of electors it would be entitled to if it were a state, but not more than the least populous state.  Since Wyoming would have 4 EV, 4 is the new maximum for DC.