Census Estimates for 2008 -> 2010 Apportionment

[Sam Spade]

If the Mexicans in Texas keep going back to Mexico as they are presently doing during the bad economic times, Texas won't get that fourth seat.

It seems like Texas would be one place where they wouldn't leave. Places like CA or Nevada are more likely emigration points because of weakened economies. It would be interesting to see the actual migration numbers for Mexicans by state.

I think the Katrina factor will also be a determining factor in whether or not Texas gets its fourth seat.  Louisiana has almost returned to its pre-Katrina population so its possible people are leaving Texas to return to their home state.

Katrina is an issue, no doubt, but you have to trust me that Mexicans are leaving the state right now faster than they are arriving.  Been that way for about 6-12 months now.  The Hispanic population will still grow faster than everyone else due to reproduction levels, but it's an important point due to the fact that the Census counts non-citizens.

[Joe Biden 2020]

It appears that Oklahoma is the 19th fastest growing state in the country and gaining just under 35,000 people from July 1, 2007-July 1, 2008.  We've increased our ranking every year since 2000 (although we did go from 18 in 2007 to 19 in 2008), but we were around 42 in 2001.  People are starting to take note of my great state.  I really have nothing bad to say about my state.  The main thing we need to improve on is our road maintenance.

We're not in any position to gain our seat back in 2010 or even 2020, but if this growth continues and this trend continues, I think it is conceivable we could gain it back in 2030 or 2040.  Although we'll stay with 5 seats in 2010, we're nowhere near losing another seat.

[muon2]

It appears that Oklahoma is the 19th fastest growing state in the country and gaining just under 35,000 people from July 1, 2007-July 1, 2008.  We've increased our ranking every year since 2000 (although we did go from 18 in 2007 to 19 in 2008), but we were around 42 in 2001.  People are starting to take note of my great state.  I really have nothing bad to say about my state.  The main thing we need to improve on is our road maintenance.

We're not in any position to gain our seat back in 2010 or even 2020, but if this growth continues and this trend continues, I think it is conceivable we could gain it back in 2030 or 2040.  Although we'll stay with 5 seats in 2010, we're nowhere near losing another seat.

The growth will have to pick up quite a bit. For this decade the average has only been 0.7%, though it has been close to the national average of 1% per year in the last couple of years. In order to get the seat back, OK will have to pick up even more and get to a growth rate of 1.5% to 2% per year.

I drove through OK for the first time in almost 20 years this summer. I stopped in OKC to see the memorial, and there seemed to be good growth in the area. Perhaps it will spread to enough other areas to create the needed growth.

[Tender Branson]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

[muon2]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

[Tender Branson]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

Well, lets look at the July 2007 to July 2008 numbers first. Domestic Migration to other US states seems to be similar in the reports of both agencies, but they differ on International Migration.

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 329.000
International Migration: 242.000
Domestic Migration: -135.000
Total Population Growth: 436.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 325.000
International Migration: 196.000
Domestic Migration: -144.000
Total Population Growth: 379.000

Now a look at the broader picture, from the April 2000 Census to Mid-2008:

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 2.555.000
International Migration: 1.804.000
Domestic Migration: -84.000
Total Population Growth: 4.275.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 2.549.000
International Migration: 1.826.000
Domestic Migration: -1.379.000
Total Population Growth: 2.996.000

So, the difference between the 2 institutes is almost entirely due to a discrepancy in the number of domestic migration numbers in the years 2000-2007.

[Holmes]

It appears that Oklahoma is the 19th fastest growing state in the country and gaining just under 35,000 people from July 1, 2007-July 1, 2008.  We've increased our ranking every year since 2000 (although we did go from 18 in 2007 to 19 in 2008), but we were around 42 in 2001.  People are starting to take note of my great state.  I really have nothing bad to say about my state.  The main thing we need to improve on is our road maintenance.

Your state wouldn't even recognize my existence.

Gay atheist pride!

[CARLHAYDEN]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

Well, lets look at the July 2007 to July 2008 numbers first. Domestic Migration to other US states seems to be similar in the reports of both agencies, but they differ on International Migration.

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 329.000
International Migration: 242.000
Domestic Migration: -135.000
Total Population Growth: 436.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 325.000
International Migration: 196.000
Domestic Migration: -144.000
Total Population Growth: 379.000

Now a look at the broader picture, from the April 2000 Census to Mid-2008:

CA Dept. of Finance:

Natural Increase: 2.555.000
International Migration: 1.804.000
Domestic Migration: -84.000
Total Population Growth: 4.275.000

US Census Burau:

Natural Increase: 2.549.000
International Migration: 1.826.000
Domestic Migration: -1.379.000
Total Population Growth: 2.996.000

So, the difference between the 2 institutes is almost entirely due to a discrepancy in the number of domestic migration numbers in the years 2000-2007.

Excellent work!

Believe the U.S. Census estimates as a lot of people have been fleeing the people's republic of california since 2000.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Blue: Could gain at least one EV
Red: Could lose at least one EV

[minionofmidas]

Blue: Could gain at least one EV
Red: Could lose at least one EV

If we're going by "could", Washington needs to be blue.

[Josh/Devilman88]

Blue: Could gain at least one EV
Red: Could lose at least one EV

If we're going by "could", Washington needs to be blue.

Washington would need high % of growth to gain an EV. I went by this http://www.edssurvey.com/images/File/NR_Appor08wTables.pdf

[minionofmidas]

Blue: Could gain at least one EV
Red: Could lose at least one EV

If we're going by "could", Washington needs to be blue.

Washington would need high % of growth to gain an EV. I went by this http://www.edssurvey.com/images/File/NR_Appor08wTables.pdf

...which shows a seat gain for Washington at priority no.450. Basically within the MoE of these estimates.

[Brittain33]

...which shows a seat gain for Washington at priority no.450. Basically within the MoE of these estimates.

A very important point. The 2000 census has higher numbers for pretty much every state than the estimates had predicted, and that caused unexpected volatility in the seat allocation. Two states in the midwest weren't predicted to lose seats and did (Indiana and, I think, Wisconsin?) and North Carolina and, I think, Georgia's second seat were a surprise.

[jimrtex]

I was for sure since NC growth since 2000 is about 1.3 million we would gain a seat, but this number and states gainning and losing seat can change between now and then. What is the likelyhood of NC getting another seat?

North Carolina was lucky to get the 13th seat in 2000.  This is not only due to the closeness of its margin over Utah, but also due to the overall population distribution among the States, such that a couple of States, including California and North Carolina, gained an extra seat based on the need to apportionment 435 seats.

Overall, the USA is projected to increase by 9.8% in population during the decade, equivalent to about 70,000 per CD.  Just to stay even, North Carolina would need 13 x 70,000 or around 910,000.  They would then need an excess of about 700,000 beyond that to gain a 14th seat.  And that would be to just place them on the cusp of getting lucky for that seat.

[jimrtex]

At present I estimate that their apportionment population will be 9.514 M. If all other states matched my projections, NC would need 9.578 M. That is an additional 68,000 people beyond the current projection.

Wow, that not that much more needed. If the economy start to get better NC could see that growth. I guess we will have to see.

The method that muon is using for his population projections for 2010 assumes that a State will have a growth rate in the remaining 1.75 years of the decade that it averaged over the previous 8.25 years.  In the case of North Carolina, this is not consistent with Census Bureau estimates that the growth rate has increased over the decade:

2008 2.0%
2007 2.2%
2006 2.1%
2005 1.6%
2004 1.4%
2003 1.2%
2002 1.4%
2001 1.5%
2000* 1.6% (one quarter annualized)

On the other hand, as we approach the census, the base estimate used for projection does include this later growth, and we are only projecting an additional 1.75 years.

The Census Bureau also retrospectively changes its estimates.  For example, the estimated July 2007 population for North Carolina released in December 2008, is 20,000 less than its estimate released in December 2008.

[jimrtex]

Question for Muon:

If the California Dept. of Finance estimates turn out to be more accurate than the CB estimates, is CA likely to get a 56th EV ?

If I use the estimate of 38,049,462 for Jan 1, 2008, then CA easily gets a 54th seat. In fact if all other states match the Census estimates then CA with their own estimate would just barely get a 55th seat as well. Compared to the other western states internal estimates, CA seems much higher with respect to the Census estimate. Any idea why there is such a discrepancy?

State estimates typically are based more on dwelling units, which they keep track of for property tax purposes.  Their sources of error are related to estimates of household size and vacancy rates.  California may or may not have made an adjustment for the housing bust, which drastically reduced new construction, and may have increased vacancy rates in single-family houses (due to foreclosures), but may have also increased household sizes and reduced vacancy rates in apartments. 

Some people may not be able to afford to leave California.  During the boom, they could sell their house, transfer a huge equity buildup, and buy a house twice as large for 1/2 the price in another state, and improve their standard of living, even with a reduced salary.

But now, they may have a negative equity which means that they can't even make a down payment on a new house, and if they have a job, have a choice between staying current on their mortgage or declaring bankruptcy.

[jimrtex]

...which shows a seat gain for Washington at priority no.450. Basically within the MoE of these estimates.

A very important point. The 2000 census has higher numbers for pretty much every state than the estimates had predicted, and that caused unexpected volatility in the seat allocation. Two states in the midwest weren't predicted to lose seats and did (Indiana and, I think, Wisconsin?) and North Carolina and, I think, Georgia's second seat were a surprise.

If a projection of the 2000 apportionment had been made based on the 1990 census population and the July 1998 census estimate*, then Florida would have only gained on representative and North Carolina would not have added a representative.  Michigan would not have lost a representative, and Montana would have regained its 2nd representative.

North Carolina did not gain its 13th representative in 2000 because it was particularly deserving, but rather because there was a somewhat unusual distribution of population that required some states (NC and CA) to be apportioned a representative so that there would be 435 representatives.

*Using the estimate for July 1998 released in December 1999.

[muon2]

At present I estimate that their apportionment population will be 9.514 M. If all other states matched my projections, NC would need 9.578 M. That is an additional 68,000 people beyond the current projection.

Wow, that not that much more needed. If the economy start to get better NC could see that growth. I guess we will have to see.

The method that muon is using for his population projections for 2010 assumes that a State will have a growth rate in the remaining 1.75 years of the decade that it averaged over the previous 8.25 years.  In the case of North Carolina, this is not consistent with Census Bureau estimates that the growth rate has increased over the decade:

2008 2.0%
2007 2.2%
2006 2.1%
2005 1.6%
2004 1.4%
2003 1.2%
2002 1.4%
2001 1.5%
2000* 1.6% (one quarter annualized)

On the other hand, as we approach the census, the base estimate used for projection does include this later growth, and we are only projecting an additional 1.75 years.

The Census Bureau also retrospectively changes its estimates.  For example, the estimated July 2007 population for North Carolina released in December 2008, is 20,000 less than its estimate released in December 2008.

I agree that in the last couple of years of the decade my projection fails to take a decade-long trend up or down into account. For most states I find that the trends are as likely to be statistical noise as real changes. NC may well be real, but every method has its weaknesses, and that one is mine.

[Josh/Devilman88]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2008. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 then applied that to the estimate for July 1, 2008. To this I added the difference between the resident and apportionment populations in 2000 to reach a projected apportionment population for 2010.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -1
OH -2
PA -1
SC +1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from MN and OR to NY and SC. The last states awarded seats were FL 27 (431), NY 28 (432), CA 53 (433), SC 7 (434) and TX 36 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation and dropped from seat 433 in last year's projection.

The next five seats would go to OR 6 (436), WA 10 (437), MN 8 (438), MO 9 (439), and NC 14 (440). Seat 436 is important if the new Congress passes a DC representation act like the one offered in Congress last year, since that seat could be real in 2010. OR and MN have been bouncing back and forth from this waiting list to the real list on the last couple of estimates, so they really could go either way in 2010.

It looks like the congress may pass it, so does that mean number increase to 436 or 437? And does it stay that way or go back to 435?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Expect a significant exodus from California as a result of the policy of the state government to tax and spend and increase taxes.

Arizona and Nevada most likely to benefit from the refugee Californians fleeing socialist tyranny of the People's Republic of California.

[Holmes]

Most likely Nevada. I know Californians are smart, so they won't leave, but if they would, they'd likely go somewhere better, not worst, so not Arizona.

[Brittain33]

Arizona and Nevada most likely to benefit from the refugee Californians fleeing socialist tyranny of the People's Republic of California.

Right, they're going to move to states whose economies are based on building and selling houses no one is buying any more and where in-migration has already collapsed because they oppose "socialist tyranny."

[muon2]

The Census Bureau released its new estimates for the population of the states as of July 1, 2008. As in past years I have used that data to project the April 1, 2010 apportionment populations. This requires finding the population growth in the resident population for each state, then applying that to the apportionment population.

One special circumstance is to account for the effect of hurricane Katrina. LA saw an estimated drop of 250 K in the 10 months following the hurricane. If I used the normal methodology, that would project a continued decline through 2010. Instead, for LA I took the percentage growth from July 1, 2006 to July 1, 2008 then applied that to the estimate for July 1, 2008. To this I added the difference between the resident and apportionment populations in 2000 to reach a projected apportionment population for 2010.

Based on this projection, the following adjustments would be required to reapportion the seats in 2010:

AZ +2
FL +2
GA +1
IL -1
IA -1
LA -1
MA -1
MI -1
MN -1
MO -1
NV +1
NJ -1
NY -1
OH -2
PA -1
SC +1
TX +4
UT +1

Compared to last year's projection this is a shift of two seats from MN and OR to NY and SC. The last states awarded seats were FL 27 (431), NY 28 (432), CA 53 (433), SC 7 (434) and TX 36 (435). These seats are on the bubble and most at risk to fluctuations in growth in the next two years. TX 36 is particularly at risk since part of the population growth is due to Katrina relocation and dropped from seat 433 in last year's projection.

The next five seats would go to OR 6 (436), WA 10 (437), MN 8 (438), MO 9 (439), and NC 14 (440). Seat 436 is important if the new Congress passes a DC representation act like the one offered in Congress last year, since that seat could be real in 2010. OR and MN have been bouncing back and forth from this waiting list to the real list on the last couple of estimates, so they really could go either way in 2010.

It looks like the congress may pass it, so does that mean number increase to 436 or 437? And does it stay that way or go back to 435?

The bill to add a DC seat would increase the number of seats from the states to 436.

[minionofmidas]

Most likely Nevada. I know Californians are smart, so they won't leave, but if they would, they'd likely go somewhere better, not worst, so not Arizona.

"You can fry an egg out there on the city sidewalk
You can fry your bacon and n'and n'and n'and
I understand why lizards live in sunny Arizona
Why people do and call it home I'll never comprehend"

[Sbane]

Most likely Nevada. I know Californians are smart, so they won't leave, but if they would, they'd likely go somewhere better, not worst, so not Arizona.

"You can fry an egg out there on the city sidewalk
You can fry your bacon and n'and n'and n'and
I understand why lizards live in sunny Arizona
Why people do and call it home I'll never comprehend"

Because its absolutely beautiful weather for more than half the year? And about 1/4th the price of socal.