Census Estimates for 2005 -> 2010 apportionment

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

First, from 1920 - 1950 the trend was for people to move from rural areas to big cities. This fueled the New Deal vote.

Second, while suburbs established before World War II are frequently limosine liberal and trending Democra, most suburbs established post war are trending Republican. 

[CARLHAYDEN]

While we're only halfway through the decade, it does seem likely that the Bush states will be 'up' from 4 to 8 U.S. Representatives (and Electoral College votes) for the 2012 elections.

I think there's very little chance that Republicans won't gain, although Nevada and Florida flipping would benefit the Democrats.

As important a reapportionment is (particulary for the Electoral College), redistricting in more important with regards to U.S. House of Representatives seats and state legislative seats.  As I noted a few months ago in a thread on another board, the growing areas within states were far more likely to support Bush than Kerry, while those areas with little (or negative) population growth were among Kerry's best areas.

I'm not aware of a time in history when this wasn't true, especially relative to national average.  Republicans may do well in the fast-growing areas, but that does not go without previously Republican "inner suburbs" drifting more Democratic.  We saw this between 2000 and 2004 in most parts of the United States.  I wonder how 2000's fastest-growing areas voted in 2004?  (Turnover obviously wasn't that quick, but you get the idea - new Republicans are not generated simply by moving without distilling the political demographics.)

First, from 1920 - 1950 the trend was for people to move from rural areas to big cities. This fueled the New Deal vote.

Second, while suburbs established before World War II are frequently limosine liberal and trending Democra, most suburbs established post war are trending Republican. 

Where are you getting this information from?  You couldn't see that unless you analysed precinct returns countrywide.  Have you done so?

With respect to the first point in my most recent post, just check the data.

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

[CARLHAYDEN]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

[CARLHAYDEN]

With respect to the second point in my most recent post, this has been noted by psepologists for decades.  Certain suburbs (Shaker Heights, Scarsdale, etc.) have been following the path for a long time. Its pretty common knowledge.

Could you link me to a paper on this?  I would enjoy reading it.

Both examples you describe, I would think, involve an area becoming significantly more affluent because of the increased land values.  I'm not familiar with whenn suburbs were established.  Around here, basically all suburbs were established post-World War II except ones incorporated in the original city.

This pheonomena has been discussed in a number of books, starting with Kevin Phillip's masterpiece, The Emerging Republican Majority.

In a nutshell, the distinction is between pre World War II affluent suburbs in the Northeat and to a lesser extent the Midwest like Scarsdale, and comparing them to post World War II suburbs like Levittown.

The distinction is not merely one of time, but of community purpose and composition.  Prior to World War II, suburbs were few in number and were communities for the rich while after World War II the new suburbs were communities where average people could buy a house and escape the unheavenly city.

The problem with that argument is that the rich are even more likely to be Republican than those "escaping to the suburbs."  I've read The Emerging Republican Majority.  It is interesting, but I'd rather read a work that is not attempting to prove something.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Prices of housing in metro areas is rising because of sepculation in the markiet, investors buying housing isntead of equities because the returns are higher.

Thanks for trying to answer the question, John.

So basically what you are saying is that people are buying simply in anticipation of appreciation-- that they are buying but not occupying, or renting at a loss?

Carl- I believe it's spelled "psephologist". I'm normally not a stickler for spelling but some people might not know what the term means. Also-- do you have a source for your claim? The D.C. suburbs have been trending Democrat since the 1970s and the vast majority of them were established after World War II.

First, please excuse the typo. Thanks for the correction.

Second, perhaps I did not make it clear, but I did not mean ALL suburbs that came into existance since WW II were trending Republican.

Third, CQ has analysis of this every four years.

[CARLHAYDEN]

.

It depends upon which 'rich' you are talking about,  The inherited wealth rich tend to be socially quite liberal.  They didn't earn their money.  Those who did earn their money and who are rich tend to be libertarian/conservative.

Carl Hayden,

That is one of the most "right on" things anyone has ever said on this forum. Amen.

How do you know this? Do you know a lot of old money people. Where I live, all wealthy people are very conservative, regardless of how long they've had their money.

First, I earlier cited sources.  Systematic data is atypical examples.

Second, yes I do know some 'old money' people.  Like any group they are not all in agreement, but they generally tend to favor 'liberal' positions on social issues.

Third, I really don't understand why liberals insist on using terms like "all."  I really doubt that "all" wealthy people where you live are very conservative.  But then, this may be a terminological matter since to some  those who don't admire Pol Pot are by definition "very conservative."  So, if this is typical of your definition of "very conservative," then I guess it is possible that ALL the wealthy people in your area are "very conservative."

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Census Bureau released its estimates of the populations in each state for July 1, 2005. A press release and excel file contain the official info.

As in previous years I have used this data to project the House apportionment for 2010. My methodology and projections follow.

The Census provides an apportionment population and base residential population for April 1, 2000. The apportionment population includes residents out of state such as overseas military personnel. An annual rate is calculated from the base population and the new estimate (July 1, 2005) using a period of 5.25 years. The annual rate is applied to the base population for a period of 10 years, and the difference between the 2000 apportionment population and base population is added. This results in a projected apportionment population for each state.

The House seats are apportioned on the priority method used for past decennial reapportionments. Each state is assigned one seat. An average number of residents per seat is calulated each state with the current seat assignment and for an assignment of one additional seat. The priority is calculated for each state by taking the geometric mean of those two averages. The state with the highest priority is given the next seat, and its next priority is calculated. The process continues until 435 seats are assigned.

The 2010 projections would result in these changes:

AZ +2
CA +1
FL +3
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NY -2
OH -2
PA -1
TX +3
UT +1

The following states were the last to get seats: 431 AL-7, 432 PA-18, 433 CA-54, 434 AZ-10, 435 FL-28.

These states would be next in line to get seats: 436 MN-8, 437 MI-15, 438 NY-36, 439 IL-19, 440 LA-7.

Compared to the 2004 estimates this is one additional seat for AZ and FL, and one less for MI and MN.

Note that this does not include the affects of relocations due to Katrina which occurred after the date of the estimates. To test the effects I moved 300K from LA in 2010 and assigned 150K to TX, 50K to GA and 20K to each of AR, CA, NC, SC, and TN. That amount of movement had no effect on the reapportionment, though MO would be at priority 440 instead of LA.

An interesting sidelight is that one of the two seats in the House that Arizona is projected to get is based on illegal immigrants.

Fortunately the people (over the objections of Gov. Napolitano) enacted a law to prevent non-citizens from voting.

[CARLHAYDEN]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7255409/