The U.S. Census Bureau recently released its estimates for the populations of the 50 states as they stood on July 1, 2003. It's well known that the economy experienced a turning point in 2000, ending a long period of economic prosperity, and this has undoubtedly changed the state-by-state growth patterns from the way they were in the 1990's, so this data can give us an idea of what the state populations may look like in 2010. Furthermore, the next electoral map will be used in 2012, 2016, and 2020, so we'll be living with it for a long time. Here I present a tentative estimate of the population for each state in 2010 based on the state growth rates between 2000-2003. This was done by a simple extrapolation of the growth rate. While there are obvious flaws in this method, it gives us the best estimate available of what the population of the states will be, and thus what the 2010 apportionment will look like. Further, the Census Bureau extrapolates growth rates all the time, for example, when they say that Hispanics will be x% of the population by the year 2050. Certainly this 7-year estimate is far more conservative.
I calculated the average annual growth rate for each state by taking the LN(state pop 2003) - LN(state pop 2000) and dividing by 3. Then I assumed the same growth rate for each state for each of the seven years 2003-2010. Then I multiplied each the percentage of the estimated 2010 national population of each state's estimated 2010 population by 435, and rounded to the nearest whole integer. Adding all of the results plus 103 gave a total of 535. For the 2000 data, the total for the states calculated using this method was 536... two states that were nearest to being rounded up to the next number were bumped up; these states were North Carolina and California. This time, the states that were bumped up were Michigan, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania. Finally, an image of the probable 2010 apportionment emerged. All states remained the same except these:
Gainers:
.Texas (37, +3)
.Florida (29, +2)
.California (57, +2)
.Nevada (6, +1)
.Utah (6, +1)
.Arizona (11, +1)
.Georgia (16, +1)
Losers:
.Ohio (18, -2)
.New York (29, -2)
.Iowa (6, -1)
.Louisiana (8, -1)
Alabama (8, -1)
.Missouri (10, -1)
.Massachusetts (11, -1)
.Pennsylvania (20, -1)
.Illinois (20, -1)
The raw changes of course reflect absolute rather than percentage growth rates. Nevada was by far the fastest-growing state in the nation percentagewise. It can be argued that Nevada and Utah would be the biggest winners, because they would see their Congressional delegations grow by 33% each, from 3 to 4. Iowa would be the biggest loser percentagewise, losing a fifth of its representation. I have no map as of now.
The states that went for Gore would collectively lose another 4 electoral votes; the 2000 Bush states would gain 4. Though I'm not sure how relevant that would be in 2012.
#1 a
two year economic slow-down is not going to have a vast effect on moving patterns.
#2 That being said I think that your numbers for a shift are far too conservative and California will not gain. If anything it will lose. California will go back down to 54 and the dispersed population will be delt out amoung Arizona, Oregon, Nevada, Utah and Colorado.
