Census population estimates 2011-2019
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
March 28, 2024, 08:10:29 AM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 15 Down, 35 To Go)
  Census population estimates 2011-2019
« previous next »
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 36
Author Topic: Census population estimates 2011-2019  (Read 180233 times)
krazen1211
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,372


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #250 on: December 20, 2016, 05:37:15 PM »

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.
Logged
KingSweden
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,227
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #251 on: December 20, 2016, 05:58:58 PM »

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs
Logged
Tintrlvr
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 5,282


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #252 on: December 20, 2016, 06:36:50 PM »

NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

I would guess that, as in the past, the main cause is continued decline in upstate (both urban and rural) due to poor economic conditions and undesirable weather, along with stagnation of growth (or possibly even decline) in outer suburban NYC counties like Suffolk and Orange. NYC itself is still growing at a good clip relative to other large cities.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #253 on: December 20, 2016, 07:28:59 PM »

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

The county estimates will be interesting in that regard. Probably an odd mix of downstate and downscale Chicago suburbs

IL would have to lose at least 200K through the rest of the decade to lose a second CD. That's a much faster pace than losses have occurred so far, and short of stopping legal immigration (not just illegal immigration), it's hard to see IL lose that much in the next 3+ years.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #254 on: December 20, 2016, 08:35:55 PM »

Illinois losing 2 Congressional districts could put a damper on the ruthless gerrymander.

It goes that FL-29 is the last seat to be added, then AZ-10 second to last, etc, then IL-17 is the fifth to last.   So the bottom five are

431:  IL-17
432:  TX-39
433: CA-53
434: AZ-10
435: FL-29

So for Illinois to lose a seat, it would "currently" mean the other four either passed IL or all five dropped further down the list, replaced by other states.
Logged
Figueira
84285
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,175


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #255 on: December 20, 2016, 09:20:33 PM »

So, California might lose a congressional district?
Logged
Kevinstat
Jr. Member
***
Posts: 1,823


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #256 on: December 20, 2016, 09:35:14 PM »

So, California might lose a congressional district?
It's kind of on the bubble for both gaining and losing a seat I guess.  A fairly small difference in growth rate can be the difference between x+1 seats and x-1 seats in a state with as many current seats (x) as California.
Logged
cinyc
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 12,721


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #257 on: December 20, 2016, 11:16:22 PM »

Hmmm... could the oil crash put TX-39 in doubt again by 2020?  And I'm surprised MT is holding up so well given the collapse in ND.  VA-12 now seems quite unlikely, especially with Republicans taking control of the federal budget.  IL losing 2 CDs would really be something.

There is little reason for Montana's population to collapse.  Montana's growth isn't one-tenth as dependent on oil as North Dakota's.  Besides, the portion of eastern Montana near North Dakota is sparsely populated.  Its oil patch cities are few and far between - Sidney and perhaps Glendive, but even categorizing Glendive as an oil patch city is a stretch. 
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #258 on: December 21, 2016, 03:14:04 AM »

ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.
Shocked
Smiley
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #259 on: December 21, 2016, 04:02:24 AM »

Through 2016 there have been the following changes.

Florida +1 to 28.
North Carolina +1 to 14
Oregon +1 to 6
Texas +1 to 37

Illinois -1 to 17
Michigan -1 to 13
Minnesota -1 to 7
Pennsylvania -1 to 17

Were this Australia, a redistribution would have occurred, but this would have been in 2015 or earlier. There were no changes this year.

Projected additional changes by 2020:

Arizona +1 to 10
Colorado +1 to 8
Florida +1 (more) to 29 *** This is a change ***
Texas +2 to 39

Alabama -1 to 6
New York -1 to 26
Ohio -1 to 15
Rhode Island -1 to 1
West Virginia -1 to 2

California 0 to 53 *** This is a change ***
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #260 on: December 21, 2016, 12:45:27 PM »

So, California might lose a congressional district?
States get a proportional share of the representatives. A state that grows at the decennial national growth rate (10% for 2000-2010, 7.6% estimated for 2010-2020) will maintain its representation - subject to collective rounding.

California can go from 52.5/435 to 53.5/435 of the population with an increase of 1.9% in population relative to that of the country. So a 9.5% increase would add one representative, a 5.7% increase would subtract one representative.

But you also have to consider rounding. California can spread any error around among 53 districts. For the past two decades the overall distribution has been favorable to rounding up. California was entitled to less than 52.5 districts, but got a favorable rounding. In 2010, CA, FL, MN, TX, and WA all got favorable rounding.

By 2020, it is estimated that only FL will get a favorable rounding.

So California might get rounded from 52.3 to 53 one census; and from 52.7 to 52 the next.

Another factor is that the Census Bureau revises its estimates.

In 2015, the estimate of the 2015 population was 39.144M.

In 2016, the estimate of the 2015 population was 38.994M.
In 2016, the estimate of the 2016 population was 39.250M.

Based on the 2015 and 2016 vintage estimates California only grew 0.27%.
Based on 2016 vintage estimates the increase was 0.66%.

While growth has slowed, it was not as severe as suggested by two different vintages.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #261 on: December 21, 2016, 01:20:15 PM »

Hmmm... could the oil crash put TX-39 in doubt again by 2020?  And I'm surprised MT is holding up so well given the collapse in ND.  VA-12 now seems quite unlikely, especially with Republicans taking control of the federal budget.  IL losing 2 CDs would really be something.
There is little reason for Montana's population to collapse.  Montana's growth isn't one-tenth as dependent on oil as North Dakota's.  Besides, the portion of eastern Montana near North Dakota is sparsely populated.  Its oil patch cities are few and far between - Sidney and perhaps Glendive, but even categorizing Glendive as an oil patch city is a stretch. 
Williston is a long way from anywhere. The closet city with 100,000+ cities is Regina, which is closer than Billings and Fargo. Regina is also the closest capital.

There is so little population base in the area that Minot and Bismarck have also had considerable growth this decade. You might be able to commute from Minot at least for a few months until you found an apartment or mobile home closer.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #262 on: December 21, 2016, 02:03:15 PM »

It appears that traditional growth areas in the West are having accelerated growth, with both the 1st and 2nd derivatives positive in WA, OR, NV, AZ, UT, ID, MT and CO.

The most dramatic effect has been in Oregon which has dawdled along below 6 seats for some time. They made the 2020 projection for a gain in 2015; and actually would have achieved it in 2016.

Based on the 2016 vintage estimates:

2011: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1; MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2012: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL-1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

2013: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1; MN-1

West Virginia has turned negative and declined for the past four years. It, in effect, dropped faster than Alabama.

2014: CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, TX+3, VA+1; AL=0; IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: NC+1, TX+1; MN-1, PA-1

2015: AZ+1, CA+1, CO+1, FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3, VA=0; AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, TX+1; IL-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in the West added three seats in Arizona, California, and Oregon, at the expense of Alabama, New York, and Virginia. In the case of Alabama and Virginia it was a case of being caught by faster gainers, while New York has had a substantial decline in growth (and its projected population for 2020).

2016: AZ+1, CO+1, FL+2, NC+1, OR+1, TX+3; CA=0, VA=0;  AL-1, IL-1, MI-1,  MN-1, NY-1, OH-1, PA-1, RI-1, WV-1.
Actual change: FL+1, NC+1, OR+1, TX+1; IL-1, MI-1, MN-1, PA-1

Accelerating growth in Florida gives it a second seat by the end of the decade while the growth rate in California is declining. Oregon actually gains its 6th seat, one year after being projected to gain a seat.
Logged
windjammer
Atlas Politician
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 15,512
France


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #263 on: December 21, 2016, 07:13:52 PM »

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.
Wait, IL might lose 2 CDs?
Logged
○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└
jfern
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 53,611


Political Matrix
E: -7.38, S: -8.36

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #264 on: December 21, 2016, 09:50:11 PM »

Even losing one would be sort of a victory for NY since it'd be the first time it didn't lose multiple since peaking at 45 in the '30s and '40s.
Logged
jimrtex
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 11,828
Marshall Islands


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #265 on: December 22, 2016, 05:25:08 AM »

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.
Wait, IL might lose 2 CDs?
Illinois was entitled to 18.043 representatives in 2010, and is projected at 16.710 in 2020.

For 2000 and 2010, larger states with a fraction less than 0.5 were being rounded upward. But it appears that this tendency may be balancing out. Arizona and Florida are increasing their growth, so that a projection that assumes a constant rate of increase will underestimate the population, so AZ-10 and FL-29 will likely pass IL-17 by 2020.

For MT-2 or AL-7 etc. to pass IL-17 would require an even larger decrease for Illinois. Illinois has been negative for the past 3 years, and the rate of decline is increasing .

So it appears to be in the realm of possibility, but perhaps not likelihood.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #266 on: December 24, 2016, 02:10:47 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #267 on: December 24, 2016, 03:21:17 AM »

ND down to 0.1% growth, from 2.3% in the previous year.

Shocked
ND lost 4,700 people in terms of migration(international and domestic combined) from 2015-2016.
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #268 on: December 24, 2016, 03:28:54 AM »
« Edited: December 24, 2016, 03:31:19 AM by hopper »

NY losing population? Sad!

Any reason why, though?

Here are the relevant components:
Births +237K
Deaths -161K
Natural increase +76K

International migration +118K
Domestic migration -191K
Net migration -73K

Total population change -2K

Note that's the sum of natural change and migration is a 3K increase not the -2K decrease that's being reported. According to the CB the change "includes a residual. This residual represents the change in population that cannot be attributed to any specific demographic component. See Population Estimates Terms and Definitions at http://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/popest/about/glossary.html."

In any case the largest factor in the decline in NY is the net migration to other states.

International Immigration was enough from 2010/2011-2013/2014 of Census Periods to offset Domestic Migration Losses during that time period. However in both Census Periods of 2014/2015 and 2015/2016  International Migration was not enough to offset Domestic Migration during that time period.
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #269 on: December 24, 2016, 04:29:22 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.
Logged
Tender Branson
Mark Warner 08
Atlas Institution
*****
Posts: 58,173
Austria


Political Matrix
E: -6.06, S: -4.84

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #270 on: December 24, 2016, 05:02:50 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...
Logged
muon2
Moderator
Atlas Icon
*****
Posts: 16,788


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #271 on: December 24, 2016, 05:26:42 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

They'd need the numbers well before that. The electors are selected at state party conventions before the national conventions. The follow up Census for those who didn't respond isn't done until the summer, but by then state conventions have already occurred.
Logged
Nyvin
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 7,623
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #272 on: December 24, 2016, 10:54:16 AM »

Question:

The 2020 Census is done on April 1, 2020 (and slightly before and after that).

But the results + apportionment of CD's and EV's are only announced in December 2020.

So, are the new EV numbers already used for the 2020 Presidential election, or only for 2024 ?

The next apportionment comes out after the 2020 election, so it will first be used in the 2022 off-year election and the presidential election of 2024.

Interesting, thanks.

If they'd release the numbers 2 months earlier, they could already use the newly apportioned EV for the 2020 Presidential Election, instead of waiting 4 years.

But I guess calculating the results from the Census takes some time ...

I don't think that would work either,  the candidates need to know what district their primary will be in well in advance of the actual election.   
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #273 on: December 24, 2016, 12:38:31 PM »

States that passed each other in the population rankings in 2016:

Tennessee passed Indiana for 16th most populous state

Colorado passed Minnesota for 21st most populous state

Utah passed Mississippi for 31st most populous state

Nevada passed Kansas for most 34 most populous state(I think that happened this year.)
Logged
hopper
Sr. Member
****
Posts: 3,414
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #274 on: December 24, 2016, 12:57:21 PM »

Surprised that PA might overtake IL. Is all this growth in urban areas?
PA lost 7,700 people in terms of population overall (taking into account international and domestic migration, births, deaths) and Illinois lost 37,5000 in terms of population overall in the 2015-2016 Census Period.
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 6 7 8 9 10 [11] 12 13 14 15 16 ... 36  
« 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 0.056 seconds with 11 queries.