I assume we used the same census estimates, but we have slight differences. I'm curious what you used for the projections.
Based upn the US Census Burea projections for 2010 population, when the next census will be done....
State CDs EVs EV now Gain/loss
AK 1 3 3 0
AL 6 8 9 -1 (I have no change, AL gets seat 433.)
AR 4 6 6 0
AZ 9 11 10 +1
CA 54 56 55 +1
CO 7 9 9 0
CT 5 7 7 0
DE 1 3 3 0
FL 26 28 27 +1 (I have FL +2, and would get +3 with seat 438)
GA 14 16 15 +1
HI 2 4 4 0
IA 4 6 7 -1
ID 2 4 4 0
IL 18 20 21 -1
IN 9 11 11 0
KS 4 6 6 0
KY 6 8 8 0
LA 7 9 9 0 (I have LA -1, and only get the next seat at 440)
MA 9 11 12 -1
MD 8 10 10 0
ME 2 4 4 0
MI 15 17 17 0
MN 8 10 10 0
MO 8 10 11 -1
MS 4 6 6 0
MT 1 3 3 0
NC 13 15 15 0
ND 1 3 3 0
NE 3 5 5 0
NH 2 4 4 0
NJ 13 15 15 0
NM 3 5 5 0
NV 4 6 5 +1
NY 28 30 31 -1 (I have NY -2, they get their next seat at 437)
OH 16 18 20 -2
OK 5 7 7 0
OR 5 7 7 0
PA 18 20 21 -1
RI 2 4 4 0
SC 6 8 8 0
SD 1 3 3 0
TN 9 11 11 0
TX 35 37 34 +3
UT 4 6 5 +1
VA 11 13 13 0
VT 1 3 3 0
WA 9 11 11 0
WI 8 10 10 0
WV 3 5 5 0
WY 1 3 3 0
Bottom Line - Red states are +3 (so, I get red +4)
For those into math, this is how it is done...
http://www.census.gov/population/www/censusdata/apportionment/computing.html
I did it fairly fast, I'll recheck my math...
While I generally agree with you, I suspect that Alabama will NOT lose a seat and California will NOT gain a seat.
My reason for this difference is that I am not using straight line projections, but rather changes in rate of growth. The California net rate of growth is declining and will not continue at the present rate through 2010 while I expect the Alabama rate to slightly increase (basically, California is becoming too expensive and Alabama will increasingly become a retirement mecca due to lost cost of living).