New Census Estimates for the States

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Here's what I get

July 2004:
Arizona +1
Florida +1
Iowa -1
New York -1
Ohio -1
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +1
Utah +1

Total change through to 2010 census:
Arizona +1
California +1
Florida +2
Georgia +1
Illinois -1
Iowa -1
Louisiana -1
Massachusetts -1
Missouri -1
Nevada +1
New York -2
Ohio -2
Pennsylvania -1
Texas +3
Utah +1

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I'm getting different results than you are for which states have seats 431 to 440.

#431  TX 35
#432  PA 18
#433  AL 7
#434  MN 8
#435  MI 15

#436  CA 55
#437  NY 28
#438  FL 28
#439  IL 19
#440  LA 7

We can cross-check our projected populations to see where a difference might lie. I'll list the populations in the following order, 2000, 2004, 2010, rounded to nearest 1000 (which could be our difference):


TX: 20904, 22490, 24829
PA: 12301, 12407, 12552
MN: 4926, 5101, 5348
AL: 4461, 4530, 4625
MI: 9956, 10113, 10329
CA: 33930, 35894, 38723
NY: 19005, 19227, 19531
IL: 12439, 12714, 13096
FL: 16029, 17397, 19435
LA: 4480, 4516, 4565

Those final populations give rise to these priorities. The priority number is the geometric mean of the present CD pop and the CD population if an additional seat is added:

#431 TX 35: 719.8
#432 PA 18: 717.5
#433 MN 8: 714.6
#434 AL 7: 713.7
#435 MI 15: 712.8
#436 CA 55: 710.7
#437 NY 28: 710.4
#438 IL 19: 708.1
#439 FL 28: 706.9
#440 LA 7: 704.4

If you have equivalent values I can see if rounding or some other effect caused our relative switches of MN and AL, and IL and FL.

How do you get those 2000 population numbers?
The April 2000 Census and the July 2000 estimates are both different.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

How do you get those 2000 population numbers?
The April 2000 Census and the July 2000 estimates are both different.

I used the official apportionment populations from the April 1, 2000 census.

www.census.gov/population/cen2000/tab01.pdf

"The apportionment calculation is based upon the total resident population (citizens and noncitizens) of the 50 states. In Census 2000, the apportionment population also includes U.S. Armed Forces personnel and federal civilian employees stationed outside the United States (and their dependents living with them) that can be allocated back to a home state."

"Question: Are the overseas population counts used for redistricting?
Answer: No, the overseas counts are used solely for reapportioning seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. The home state data for the overseas population do not meet the substate geographical precision required to conduct redistricting (i.e., blocks)."

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.

Oh, that probably explains why I had Utah getting that seat NC barely got in the 2000 census.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

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?