Census population estimates 2011-2019

[muon2]

Could NC pass GA in the next few years in population?

GA and NC are both growing at a rate of 1.0%/year. The were 162K apart in pop in 2010 an GA got a favorable rounding to give it one more seat than NC. In the 2016 estimate GA is 172K ahead of NC so GA is actually gaining slightly faster and should stay ahead of NC.

If they maintain the same rate of growth for the whole decade GA will be 181K ahead of NC for the 2020 census. However, this time GA will round down and NC will round up so NC gains a seat to equalize with GA.

[muon2]

What are NC's chances of getting a 15th district in 2030?

As I noted above, GA is maintaining its lead over NC this decade. If that continues into the next decade then GA gets its 15th CD before NC. The question you would have to ask is what conditions are needed for both GA and NC to gain in 2030. That requires some guesses about changes in growth in places like TX and FL, and how much the Rust Belt slows compared to the rest of the US. That's hard so far out without a lot of other projection data that isn't in the basic estimate.

[muon2]

I want to see if the (until recently) fast-growing oil counties, like McKenzie and Williams, ND, have started to lose population or are just growing more slowly.

It looks like they are losing:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[muon2]

After growing by 23K in the first 3 years of the decade Chicago has joined the rest of IL with population losses, falling by 14K since 2013, 8K just in last estimate year (7/1/15 - 7/1/16).

[muon2]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2016 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 6 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There is only one change since my projections last year. CA stays unchanged at 53 instead of adding a seat and FL gains 2 instead of 1 up to 29. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, AZ-10, and FL-29 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, CA-54, VA-12, and MN-8.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives the same projection as the one above, with changes only in the order of the bubble seats.

I think it's fairly safe to say Harvey ended any chance of Texas gaining three seats in the next census.  Even if the disruption proves only half as bad as Katrina, there will be a lot of people who otherwise might live in Texas who won't be able to thirty-one months from now.

Unfortunately we wont have a good estimate of that next year. The date used for next year's estimate release is July 1, 2017 and the impact of Harvey is after that. Until then it will useful to see where displaced Houstonians go. A lot of Katrina victims moved to se TX, but if Harvey victims shift within TX, eg to DFW, it will have minimal impact on the statewide estimates.

[muon2]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2017 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 7 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

There are no changes since my projections last year. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, TX-39, CA-53, FL-29, and AZ-10 (#435).
The next five in line are MT-2, AL-7, MN-8, NY-36, and CA-54.

An alternate projection could use just the last two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth for the rest of the decade. That model gives an extra seat to MT at the expense of one from CA.

[muon2]

The estimates this year had few surprises, but next year may be different. The impact of the 2017 hurricanes will show up in the 2018 estimates. For example, a wave from PR to NY might keep NY from losing a seat.

[muon2]

I threw 2017 estimates into an apportionment calculator and displayed the changes. Note that the total seats calculated was 436, one more than the total.

Why the increase to 436, unless it's to give one to DC?

[muon2]

Probably not so extreme as one thinks, and the House chamber could accommodate 600 based on discussions I had when visiting there 20 years ago.

[muon2]

Probably not so extreme as one thinks, and the House chamber could accommodate 600 based on discussions I had when visiting there 20 years ago.

Iowa has gone from 11 to 4, North Dakota from 3 to 1, and Vermont from 6 to 1.

In general the increase would be proportional to the rate of gain of the US minus the growth rate of the slowest growing (fastest declining) state. So perhaps 45 to 50 per decade.

If the proposed rule had first been applied in 2010, what would the size of the House been in 2010, and what would it be in 2020 if the procedure had been retained?

We had a thread last May on this topic on another board where we went back to the 1929 decision to fix the size at 435. I made a series of maps based on the rule that the size was the minimum needed so that no state lost a seat.

1920: 435
1930: 537 +23.4% (the Great Migration to the northern cities fueled this increase)
1940: 586 +9.1%
1950: 642 +9.6% (the 1947 act included the provision that states that lost population could lose seats)
1960: 737 +14.8%
1970: 797 +8.1%
1980: 885 +11.0%
1990: 971 +9.7%
2000: 1068 +10.0%
2010: 1140 +6.7%

[muon2]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2018 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 8 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting. Ten years is a long stretch for a simple model like this, but here are the projected changes.

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

Compared to last year, CA loses one and MT gains one. That is what my model based on the two years from 2015-2017 projected, so it appears that that short-term trend has continued enough to influence the whole decade. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

The alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth matches the full decade projection now.

[muon2]

Here's what the 2024 EV map would be like based on my 2020 projections with colors to indicate changes from this decade.

[muon2]

So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.

[muon2]

So I just calculated the likely changes in 2020 apportionment:

My calculations based on these 2018 estimates still suggest that we are on track for this map.

That's where I was two years ago, and reported the same last year. However I saw MT pick up a little more increase over the last two years and now it looks to be on track to beat CA for the last seat.

Based on my 2018 estimate calculations:

California has 40,045,459 people
Montana has 1,077,768 people

CA-53 value: 762,805
MT-02 value: 762,097

CA-53 is still slightly ahead.

You didn't say your method of estimating for 2020. I assume a compounding growth rate averaged either over the full decade or the final 2 years. That growth rate is applied to the apportionment population which is what the Census will use in 2020. The apportionment population is higher than the residential population (the estimate) due to overseas military personnel.

If I project using the entire decade CA has a 2020 apportionment pop of 40.158 M (39.956 M using a 2-year basis; CA's growth rate has slowed considerably the last couple of years).

If I project using the entire decade MT has a 2020 apportionment pop of 1.084 M (1.087 M using a 2-year basis).

The priority value for seat N is a state of population P is P/sqrt(N(N-1)).
The priority value for CA-53 is 765.0 K (761.1 K with the two year basis).
The priority value for MT-02 is 766.4 K (768.6 K with the two year basis).

Either way MT wins, and the short term trend favors MT extending its lead on CA.

[muon2]

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

[muon2]

I used a linear growth rate estimation based on changes across the whole decade.

If that's the case you should add the overseas military personnel times the same growth rate to the state populations since the 2020 Census will. MT has about double the participation rate of CA in overseas military - 0.5% compared to 0.24% for CA. When I took the military population out of my projection CA was back on top using the whole decade. However, even without the military adjustment MT still wins using a short term 2 or 3 year average for projection.

I have no idea where that data exists.

I thought they were already pre-placed into the census data compilations.

The Census only puts out residential estimates. The residential data is used for grant funding and redistricting, but not for apportionment. There have been SCOTUS cases about who should be counted for apportionment. For instance in Utah vs Evans I (2001) the state argued that their Mormon missionaries should be counted for apportionment which would have given UT a seat at the expense of NC, but they lost.

The data is available through the American Fact Finder tool which has the apportionment data set. However, it's not estimated through the decade so a proper model has to make its own estimate to project to the next apportionment.

[muon2]

How is MA losing population? I see new obnoxiously tacky looking condos go up every time I drive through Boston

It's not. It's the fastest growing state in the northeast.

MA is growing at 0.6%/year over the decade. That's almost as fast as the nation as a whole.

[muon2]

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.

[muon2]

Time to institute my plan in Illinois.

Pritzker is intituting the legal marijuana but I doubt he will institute my other plan.

Abolish all property taxes in the state of Illinois and all sales taxes in opportunity zones in Cook County and parts of downstate.

Edit: Also  I would nuke all public sector unions.

That should solve most of the mess in the state is causing people to leave.

The IL sales taxes are pretty much only assessed on purchases of physical items that disproportionately affect lower income groups. The state could earn 2 G$ or more by including services that are primarily used by upper income groups.

[muon2]

Where are these thoughts of NY losing two seats coming from? It seems NY has been on track to lose 1 for 7 years or so. That seat itself has always been likely to be NY22/NY24  as Dems carve up Katko and protect Brindisi or another Dem. I mean of course Dems are going to get messy with the lines in Long Island, Staten Island, and the Hudson Valley, but that is to be expected.

With the addition of the 2018 census, the map has changed.

Ah ok, the pop adjustments downward shoved the bottom out. Glancing at that map, could someone explain MN? MT and CA are constant bubble seats so that's understandable, but MN I believe lost the pop for MN08 back pre-2015. Is the state growing fast again? Or was it just shoved out of the way by NY?

Redistricting-wise, I suspect the second cut will be one of NY-18/19/20 in the Husdon Valley, or a Long Island seat with the remaining ones all getting shoved that much deeper into NY. Gives the dems a better hand, since there would now be more 'free' voters to mess with.

I answered the MN question back in Dec. You can see my bubble list in the answer below. I know the owner of the company that produced that map, and we've talked about our respective projections. He uses a slightly different projection model than I do which accounts for the differences in NY and MN. We both use full decade and 3-year averages and compare the results. He has a CA/MN flip based on that which I do not.

The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are CA53, AL-7, MN-8, OH-15, and VA-12.

Wow, that seems new!  I thought MN was definitely doomed.

MN is now the fastest growing state in the upper Midwest/Great Lakes region. They've paced the national average for the decade and are slightly ahead of it over the last two years. If they keep up their current pace of the last year or two they have a definite shot at holding their 8th seat.

[muon2]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2019 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 9 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

These projections are unchanged from last year. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are AL-7, MN-8, CA-53, OH-16, and RI-2.

I also make an alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth. It's more sensitive to recent growth trends, and matches the full decade projection.

[muon2]

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2019 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 9 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

These projections are unchanged from last year. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are AL-7, MN-8, CA-53, OH-16, and RI-2.

I also make an alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth. It's more sensitive to recent growth trends, and matches the full decade projection.

How close is AL from keeping its 7th seat? EDS says they'd need to pick up 10,072 unexpected residents to keep their seat - but I don't think that takes into account the overseas population. AL has more military than most states (2.23% of the 2010 overseas pop vs. 1.55% of the overall 2019 pop) - so I suspect it's closer than that.

According to my spreadsheet it depends on what the projected growth rate will be in the last year of the decade. If I use my full decade projection AL needs about 16K to overtake MT. However, if I use the average of just the last two years of estimates, MT only needs about 5K to overtake NY and about 10K to overtake MT. The effect of the change in DoD classification probably makes it harder for AL to get #435.

[muon2]

Any updated estimates on the electoral reappointments? So far, the only things that seem set in stone are that OR, AZ, CO, NC will gain 1, FL will gain at least 1, and TX will gain at least 2 while, While NY loses at least 1, PA, IL, RI, WV, MI all lose 1. The big question marks seem to be CA, MT, AL, OH, MN, VA, NY (2nd district), FL (2nd district), TX (3rd district). Is this an accurate summary of where things stand?

There are no new estimates from the Census Bureau. Here's my post from last year after the 2019 estimates were released.

Here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used the July 2019 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This correctly accounts for the 9 and a quarter year period between the Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AL -1
AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -1
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

These projections are unchanged from last year. The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, FL-29, TX-39, NY-26, and MT-2 (#435).
The next five in line are AL-7, MN-8, CA-53, OH-16, and RI-2.

I also make an alternate projection based on just the prior two years of estimates to determine the rate of growth. It's more sensitive to recent growth trends, and matches the full decade projection.

[muon2]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

[muon2]

Normally the Census would be releasing the actual 2020 Census apportionment data next week, and not the Jul 1, 2020 estimates. Due to the expected delay in the release of the apportionment data, we can look at these estimates that do not include any 2020 Census data. It will be interesting to compare this to the actual Census population when they are released.

So, here's my annual projection from the new estimates. I used these July 2020 estimates and the April 2010 Census base to get an annual growth rate. This accounts for a 10 and a quarter year period between the 2010 Census and the estimate. I then applied the annual growth rate to the 2010 reapportionment population to get the 2020 projection. This accounts for the extra overseas population used in reapportionment but not for redistricting (It doesn't adjust for the new distinction between deployed vs stationed).

AZ +1
CA -1
CO +1
FL +2
IL -1
MI -1
MN -1
MT +1
NY -2
NC +1
OH -1
OR +1
PA -1
RI -1
TX +3
WV -1

AL and NY have switched seats compared to last year, so that AL would have no change and NY would lose 2 seats. I tested the possibility that inclusion of the Covid-19 fatalities in NY between April 1 and July 1 would affect the result. I added the July 1 NY fatality count to my April 1 projection, and it made NY closer to AL but did not change the overall projection.

The bubble seats in this projection are based on the last five awarded and the next five in line.
The last five awarded are IL-17, CA-52, FL-29, TX-39, and AL-7 (#435).
The next five in line are NY-26, OH-16, MN-8, CA-53, and VA-12.

What numbers are we talking about for AL and NY to switch back with this estimate vis a vis the actual census figures? Is it 5,000 people or 15,000 people? Yes I know the final numbers for all the states matter.

On the NY side I added 32K to see what the effect of the pandemic would be on these July estimates. It cut the margin with AL in half, so another 32K would get it ahead on April 1. On the AL side if they have 8K fewer, assuming the 32K added to NY for covid then NY would get seat 435. These projections assume the same relative overseas military populations. In 2010 that adjustment was 23K for AL and 43K for NY. Census 2020 is changing this so that the adjustment I described would apply to those stationed outside the US, but those deployed outside the US while stationed in the US will count at their station address. I don't know how that split is for different states.