New Census Estimates for the States
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 29, 2024, 04:57:05 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion
  Presidential Election Trends (Moderator: 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  New Census Estimates for the States
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2]
Author Topic: New Census Estimates for the States  (Read 5710 times)
CARLHAYDEN
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,638


Political Matrix
E: 1.38, S: -0.51

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #25 on: December 24, 2004, 09:49:49 PM »
« edited: December 24, 2004, 09:58:59 PM by CARLHAYDEN »

Well Alcon, you again haven't seen the background to the post.

I previously had an exchange with BossTweed in which I pointed out that the Perot voters were NOT pro-Bush or Dole.

Please read the exchange between BossTweed and myself found on the Presidential Elections - Analysis and Discussion forum in the 2004 User Predictions - Discussion thread, pages 157 - 160.

To spell it out to you, I was sarcastically pointing out the absurdity of the posts by others.
Logged
nclib
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 10,300
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #26 on: December 24, 2004, 11:38:39 PM »

The apportionment of representatives is calculated in the correct manner. Each state starts with 1 seat. The priority vaule used to assign each subsequent seat is taken as geometric mean of the average population per seat and the average population per seat if an additional seat were assigned. Seats are assigned until 435 seats are apportioned.

I'm a bit confused--could you please illustrate for seats 51-55?

The last few seats assigned (and next few not assigned) are:

#433 MN 10

Do you mean MN 8?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #27 on: December 25, 2004, 12:36:02 AM »

The apportionment of representatives is calculated in the correct manner. Each state starts with 1 seat. The priority vaule used to assign each subsequent seat is taken as geometric mean of the average population per seat and the average population per seat if an additional seat were assigned. Seats are assigned until 435 seats are apportioned.

I'm a bit confused--could you please illustrate for seats 51-55?

The last few seats assigned (and next few not assigned) are:

#433 MN 10

Do you mean MN 8?
Thanks for that catch, I've editted my post to make the correction.

Your first question is a good one. As I noted the fifty states are each assigned a single representative seat. At that point the priority values for each state are equal to the square root of the product of their population (divided by 1) and their population divided by 2. This is the geometric mean.

For example AL has a projected population of 4625 K in 2010, so the priority value is sqrt[ (4625.1) * (4625.1/2) ] = 3270.4. AL maintains this priority value util a second seat is assigned to AL. At that point AL gats a new priority vaule for its third seat equal to sqrt[ (4625.1/2) * (4625.1/3) ] = 1888.2.

Each state has its own priority value, and the states with the highest population have the highest value. As each state is assigned another seat its proirity vaule is recalculated, and a new, lower, priority value is assigned.

Clearly CA has the highest value based on a projected population of 38733.3 K. Its priority value for the 51st seat is 27388.6 K. TX is next closest with a priority value of 17556.7 K for the 51st seat. So CA gets seat 51, and with 2 seats has a new priority value of 15812.8 K.

Seats 51 through 60 look like this (quoting pop in thousands):

#51 CA 2, priority value 27388.6, new value 15812.8.
#52 TX 2, priority value 17556.7, new value 10136.4.
#53 CA 3, priority value 15812.8, new value 11181.4.
#54 NY 2, priority value 13810.8, new value 7973.7.
#55 FL 2, priority value 13743.0, new value 7934.5.
#56 CA 4, priority value 11181.4, new value 8661.0.
#57 TX 3, priority value 10136.4, new value 7167.5.
#58 IL 2, priority value 9260.1, new value 5346.3.
#59 PA 2, priority value 8875.5, new value 5124.3.
#60 CA 5, priority value 8661.0, new value 7071.7.

Note how the large population of CA continues to allow CA to get seats ahead of other states.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #28 on: January 15, 2005, 06:52:01 PM »
« Edited: January 15, 2005, 09:20:14 PM by jimrtex »

Here's what I get

July 2004:
Arizona +1
Florida +1
Iowa -1
New York -1
Ohio -1
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +1
Utah +1
By next year, Nevada and maybe a 2nd Texas gain, and a Massachusetts and possibly a Missouri loss.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Compared to the projections based on 2003 estimates, Alabama holds on to its seat, and California gains 1 rather than 2.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #29 on: January 15, 2005, 09:10:00 PM »

The apportionment data will be higher than the block-level state data due to overseas population. Yet the overseas population must be considered to get the apportionment estimates for 2010. A next level of precision would be to base the estimated rate off the in-state population only, then apply the rate to the total base including overseas population.
The percentage of the (census-counted) overseas population varies among the states from 0.42% to 0.10% of the apportionment population.  If you use the apportionment population for the 2000 base of the projection, but use the 2004 census estimate for resident population, you are in essence estimatiing that the overseas population had moved away from each state between 2000 and 2004, and would project that about 150% more would move away between 2004 and 2010.

For example, Hawaii had a April 2000 resident population of 1,211,537; a April 2000 apportionment population of 1,216,642, and a July 2004 estimated resident population of 1,262,840.

If you use the resident population, the annual growth rate in the 4.25 years between April 2000 and July 2004 is 0.981%.  Compounded over 10 years results in a projected resident population of 1,335,725.  If we assume that the non-resident population remains constant, this would produce an apportionment population of 1,340,830.

If you base the projection on the April 2000 apportionment population and the July 2004 estimated resident population, you get an annual growth rate of 0.881%, and a 2010 projected population of 1,328,148, which is a difference of 0.955%.

In general, southern states have a larger share of their apportionment population overseas, while northeastern and midwestern states have a smaller share.  The overseas population includes US military and federal civilian employees and dependents living with them.  It does not include other non-resident US citizens.

One of the test censuses in 2004 tested the feasiblity of enumerating all overseas Americans.  The test countries were France, Mexico, and Kuwait.
Logged
Smash255
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,445


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #30 on: January 16, 2005, 01:01:44 AM »

Please tell Boss Tweed about how all the Perot voters would have voted for Bush or Dole.

Note, I posted the percentages which can be easily seen at Dave's Election Results sites.

Facts are stubborn things.

Some posters (hmm) seem unable to deal with facts.

When you see how a state is trending you take that state & compare it to the national average


I used the following forumla  (National Dem - National Rep)   -  (State Dem- State Rep)

1992 for colorado

(43.01-37.45) - (40.13-35.87)
(5.56) - (4.26)  = In 1992 Colorado was 1.30 more Republican than Nationally

1996 for Colorado
(49.23-40.72) -(44.43-45.80)
(8.51)-(-1.37) = in 1996 Colorado was 9.88 more Republican than Nationally

2000 for Colorado
(48.38-47.87)-(42.39-50.75)
 (.51) -(-8.36) = in 2000 Colorado was 8.87 more Republican than nationally

2004 for Colorado
(48.27-50.73) (47.04-51.71)
(-2.46)-(-4.67) = in 2004 Colorado was 2.01 more Republican than the Narional Average

1992 for Florida
(43.01-37.45) (39.00-40.89)
(5.56)- (-1.89) = in 1992 Florida was 7.45 more Republican than the National averae

1996 for Florida
(49.23-40.72) -(48.02-42.32)
(8.51)- (5.7) = in 1996 Florida was 2.81 more Repubican than National Average

2000 Florida
(48.38- 47.87)
(.51) - (48.84-48.85) = in 2000 Florida was .52 more Republican than National Average

2004 Florida

(48.27-50.73) - (47.09-52.10)
(-2.46)- (-5.01) = in 2004 Florida was 2.55 more Republican than natioanl Average

1992 Nevada
(43.01-37.45) -(37.36-34.73)
(5.56)- (2.63) = in 1992 Nevada was 2.93 more Republican than National average

1996 Nevada
(49.23-40.72)-(43.93- 42.91)
(8.56)-(1.02)
In 1996 Nevada was 7.54 more Republican than National Average

2000 Nevada
(48.38-47.87)- (45.98)-(49.52)
(.51)- (-3.54)  = in 2000 Nevada was 3.03 more republican than Natinally

2004 Nevada
(48.27-50.73)-(47.88-50.47)
(-2.46) (-2.59) in 2004 Nevada was 0.13 more Republican than nationally

So if you compare the states to their Nationl average from 92 to 04 its the following

Colorado & Nevada are trneding Dem compared to Nationally, Florida was trending Dem compared to Nationally and despite trending a little more to the Republican side in 04, it is has still overall trended Dem compared to nationally
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,615


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #31 on: January 16, 2005, 02:09:56 AM »

Anyone notice that the large states get screwed by the allocations for House districts. If the priority value is n, you need only 0 people for 1 seat, sqrt(2)n=1.41n for 2 seats, but you need (k+0.5)n for the k+1st seat for a large state?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #32 on: January 17, 2005, 03:32:27 PM »

The apportionment data will be higher than the block-level state data due to overseas population. Yet the overseas population must be considered to get the apportionment estimates for 2010. A next level of precision would be to base the estimated rate off the in-state population only, then apply the rate to the total base including overseas population.
The percentage of the (census-counted) overseas population varies among the states from 0.42% to 0.10% of the apportionment population.  If you use the apportionment population for the 2000 base of the projection, but use the 2004 census estimate for resident population, you are in essence estimatiing that the overseas population had moved away from each state between 2000 and 2004, and would project that about 150% more would move away between 2004 and 2010.

For example, Hawaii had a April 2000 resident population of 1,211,537; a April 2000 apportionment population of 1,216,642, and a July 2004 estimated resident population of 1,262,840.

If you use the resident population, the annual growth rate in the 4.25 years between April 2000 and July 2004 is 0.981%.  Compounded over 10 years results in a projected resident population of 1,335,725.  If we assume that the non-resident population remains constant, this would produce an apportionment population of 1,340,830.

If you base the projection on the April 2000 apportionment population and the July 2004 estimated resident population, you get an annual growth rate of 0.881%, and a 2010 projected population of 1,328,148, which is a difference of 0.955%.

In general, southern states have a larger share of their apportionment population overseas, while northeastern and midwestern states have a smaller share.  The overseas population includes US military and federal civilian employees and dependents living with them.  It does not include other non-resident US citizens.

One of the test censuses in 2004 tested the feasiblity of enumerating all overseas Americans.  The test countries were France, Mexico, and Kuwait.
It turns out that the effect of the overseas population on projecting the next apportionment is samll, and grows smaller as one gets farther from the census year. To test this I used the 2000 resident population as the base to determine the annual percentage increase in each state. I then applied that percentage increase over ten years to the 2000 apportionment population. This makes the assumption that the overseas population will grow at the same rate as the state's population as a whole. It correctly adds in overseas population to the apportionment projections.

Using this method I proceeded to find the projected number of seats given to each state in 2010. The only changes from my earlier projection is that AL and MN switch places for seats 433 and 434, and FL and IL would switch for potential seats 438 and 439. Neither of these swaps affect the total number of projected seats.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #33 on: January 24, 2005, 12:16:36 PM »

Anyone notice that the large states get screwed by the allocations for House districts. If the priority value is n, you need only 0 people for 1 seat, sqrt(2)n=1.41n for 2 seats, but you need (k+0.5)n for the k+1st seat for a large state?
This views representation as some sort of collective right of a State, rather than the right of groups of people to have a representative of their own.  There are 3 sets of divisors that might be considered for the n+1th seat:

(a) ((n)+(n+1))/2, that is 1.5, 2.5, 3.5, 4.5, etc.

(b) sqrt((n)*(n+1)), that is 1.414, 2.449, 3.464, 4.472

(c) (2*(n)*(n+1))/((n)+(n+1)), that is 1.333, 2.400, 3.429, 4.444

Method (a) minimizes the variation in the number of representatives per person.  Method (c) minimizes the variation in the number of persons per representative.   Method (b), the one used, is a compromise of the two.

Note that under the divisor method, the raw divisors are somewhat misleading.  For example, the divisors for a 10th representative are: (a) 9.500; (b) 9.487; (c) 9.474, and the divisors for a 9th representative are (a) 8.500; (b) 8.485; (c) 8.471.   Yet the ratio between the divisors under all 3 methods is 1.118.  That is, if two states were competing for a 10th and 9th representative, then the larger state would have to have 1.118 times as many people to gain the 10th seat before the smaller kept its 9th.

Method (c) is consistent with the goals of intrastate apportionment (equality of persons per district) and applies them to interstate apportionment.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #34 on: January 24, 2005, 01:35:44 PM »

It turns out that the effect of the overseas population on projecting the next apportionment is samll, and grows smaller as one gets farther from the census year.
If you use the overseas population in the base for the projection, but not for the point at which projection begins, then the rate of increase will be deflated.  Projecting that rate forward will remove additional population.  States with a relatively high overseas population will not only have that population counted, they will incur an additional deficit in proportion to the relative size of their overseas population.

Imagine a state with 1,000,000 residents with a zero rate of growth.  If it has 1,000 overseas residents in 2000, then using 1,001,000 for 2000, 1,000,000 in 2005 will result in a projection of 999,000 for 2010.  Then compare what would happen if there had been 2,000 overseas residents.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
This may be a reasonable model, especially if the overseas population is largely related to the military.  If the overseas military population declines (for example force reductions in Germany and Korea), then the soldiers and their dependents may well return to their home states.  If the number of overseas military is increased then they likely will be drawn from the same areas they currently are.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The share of the overseas population in the apportionment population is small (0.1% to 0.4%).    I believe you may be too focused on the final priority list.  What would be the rate of growth needed for Florida to gain the 435th seat under the two projection methods (assuming that theother 49 states maintain their current estimated growth rate?
Logged
muon2
Moderators
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #35 on: January 24, 2005, 05:53:34 PM »

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
The share of the overseas population in the apportionment population is small (0.1% to 0.4%).    I believe you may be too focused on the final priority list.  What would be the rate of growth needed for Florida to gain the 435th seat under the two projection methods (assuming that theother 49 states maintain their current estimated growth rate?
Your last question here is about sensitivity to the estimating variable. One can run trials where the estimates for any given state are slightly shifted and determine the effect. For instance if the 2004 estimate for FL were 0.24% higher (17439K vs 17397K) it would move to number 435. By comparison CA only needs an increase of 0.13% in its 2004 estimate to move up to #435. NY needs 0.17%.
Logged
Gustaf
Moderators
Atlas Star
*****
Posts: 29,770


Political Matrix
E: 0.39, S: -0.70

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #36 on: January 25, 2005, 07:55:51 AM »

Carl, Alcon, Smash...the fact of the matter is that Perot obviously hurt Bush disproportionately in the Southwest-West in 1992, in states like Nevada and Colorado. They are both obviously trending to the Democrats. Florida is more of a mixed bag, it WAS trending Dem but whether it is now is more unclear. It doesn't matter as much though since it was a lot more in play than the others. It's still a battleground.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]  
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.039 seconds with 11 queries.