Census Estimates for 2008 -> 2010 Apportionment

[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.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Beat you by 10 minutes.

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90215.0

[Verily]

New York only loses a single seat! That would be quite surprising.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I wonder if you used a slightly different methodology than me. I had a geometric extrapolation from the April 1, 2000 census figures and the July 1, 2008 estimate. I did not bother to take into account that the quarters are slightly different length. I didn't do anything special with Louisiana, but that doesn't affect seats 431-440, anyways.

[muon2]

Beat you by 10 minutes.

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=90215.0

Yeah, I was driving all day, so I didn't reach my computer until about 9:30 pm EST.

Your method must differ slightly, since your priority values are different and slightly lower than mine. Do you account for the difference between apportionment and resident populations? The apportionment has additional military and other federal overseas population.

[muon2]

I wonder if you used a slightly different methodology than me. I had a geometric extrapolation from the April 1, 2000 census figures and the July 1, 2008 estimate. I did not bother to take into account that the quarters are slightly different length. I didn't do anything special with Louisiana, but that doesn't affect seats 431-440, anyways.

Our posts passed each other. I do account for the difference between April 1 census and July 1 estimates, and I find that it does shift a couple of positions in priority. As I mention I also correct for non-resident population included in the apportionment.

[muon2]

New York only loses a single seat! That would be quite surprising.

NY moved from 437 last year to 432 this year for the 28th seat. One major factor is that the Census moved the state's estimates for the last few years upward. For instance last year the July 1, 2007 estimate was 19,297,729. Now the July 1, 2007 estimate is 19,429,316. That's enough to shift them on the bubble.

[jimrtex]

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

Your method must differ slightly, since your priority values are different and slightly lower than mine. Do you account for the difference between apportionment and resident populations? The apportionment has additional military and other federal overseas population.

I match Jfern's numbers, so he must not be including the federal overseas population.

The Census Bureau includes federal overseas employees, military and civilian, and their dependents, in the apportionment populations of their respective home states.  This can typically shift a state or two, since there is some variation in the relative share of State population that is employed by the federal government.

There is nothing particularly special about the federal government employees being counted, and other US citizens residing overseas not being counted.  Federal courts have ruled that it is within the discretion of Congress to interpret "according to their respective numbers" of the 14th Amendment.

The reason the Census Bureau counts federal employees and not others, is because it is easier, and it is more consistent with their domestic methodology.   In the US, the Census Bureau attempts to contact every dwelling unit.  Contrast this with voter registration where it is generally the responsibility of the voter to contact the government (The Motor Voter Law simply encourages registration when the person has contact with the government for other purposes).

The Census Bureau can get lists of overseas employees of the government agencies and the military, and can probably enlist the agencies in getting the census forms completed.  It could probably get lists from some employers, and not others, which might introduce bias.  For example, Utah might benefit if the Mormon Church (LDS) provided a list, and smaller religious sects did not.  It would be more difficult to count persons who have established overseas residency indefinitely, such as retirees who are living in Mexico, who may at a later age return to the United States.  And there are persons who were born in the US to non-citizens who then returned to their country, and have minimal contact with the United States.

Or there would be persons such as Barack Obama, his mother, and his step-father Mr. Sotero, when they were living in Indonesia.  When they were living in the US, they would have been counted in the Hawaii apportionment population.  But why should a foreign citizen living in his home country count for the US census, even if his wife, step-son, and daughter were?

The adjustment that Muon makes is to assume that the ratio of the overseas population to the domestic population remains constant between 2000 and 2010.  So if the resident population of State X increases by 10.3%, it is assumed that the federal overseas population associated with State X also increases by 10.3%.

[muon2]

Our order of the border line seats is different, but we have the same estimate.

Your method must differ slightly, since your priority values are different and slightly lower than mine. Do you account for the difference between apportionment and resident populations? The apportionment has additional military and other federal overseas population.

I match Jfern's numbers, so he must not be including the federal overseas population.

The Census Bureau includes federal overseas employees, military and civilian, and their dependents, in the apportionment populations of their respective home states.  This can typically shift a state or two, since there is some variation in the relative share of State population that is employed by the federal government.

There is nothing particularly special about the federal government employees being counted, and other US citizens residing overseas not being counted.  Federal courts have ruled that it is within the discretion of Congress to interpret "according to their respective numbers" of the 14th Amendment.

The reason the Census Bureau counts federal employees and not others, is because it is easier, and it is more consistent with their domestic methodology.   In the US, the Census Bureau attempts to contact every dwelling unit.  Contrast this with voter registration where it is generally the responsibility of the voter to contact the government (The Motor Voter Law simply encourages registration when the person has contact with the government for other purposes).

The Census Bureau can get lists of overseas employees of the government agencies and the military, and can probably enlist the agencies in getting the census forms completed.  It could probably get lists from some employers, and not others, which might introduce bias.  For example, Utah might benefit if the Mormon Church (LDS) provided a list, and smaller religious sects did not.  It would be more difficult to count persons who have established overseas residency indefinitely, such as retirees who are living in Mexico, who may at a later age return to the United States.  And there are persons who were born in the US to non-citizens who then returned to their country, and have minimal contact with the United States.

Or there would be persons such as Barack Obama, his mother, and his step-father Mr. Sotero, when they were living in Indonesia.  When they were living in the US, they would have been counted in the Hawaii apportionment population.  But why should a foreign citizen living in his home country count for the US census, even if his wife, step-son, and daughter were?

The adjustment that Muon makes is to assume that the ratio of the overseas population to the domestic population remains constant between 2000 and 2010.  So if the resident population of State X increases by 10.3%, it is assumed that the federal overseas population associated with State X also increases by 10.3%.

Utah believed that it would have given them the 435th seat had the Census counted the LDS overseas like they do federal employees. The sued the Census, but were denied by the Federal Court and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

[Padfoot]

muon, you should make a map of your projection using the same format as the one in your profile for comparison.  

[jimrtex]

Another way of looking at it.  The first number is the number of representatives each State were apportioned fractional representatives using:

    harmonic_apportionment = sqrt (linear_apportionment^2 + 0.25) where

    linear_apportionment = state_pop / (USA50_pop/435)

The denomination of 435 in the calculation of linear_apportionment is then increased so that the sum of harmonic_apportionment is 435.

The effect is that if a state's population was equal to sqrt(n*(n+1)) times the average USA CD population, it would have a harmonic_apportionment of n + 0.5.

Note, you can not simply compare the fraction of the harmonic_apportionment, and compare it to 0.5 to determine whether a state would get an additional representative in a House of 435 members.  But you could do this if were willing to have House with some number other than 435.  For the 2010 projection, this would result in 431 members, with CA, TX, FL, and SC losing their last seats.  In general, when there is a shortage of takers for the 435 seats, larger states are favored.  When there is an excess, it is the larger states that will lose their final seat.

The second number is the change in the harmonic_apportionment from 2000 to 2010.  You could use this to make an initial estimate for 2020.

Losers: AL, IL, LA? MA?, MI, MN*, NE?, NJ?, NY*2, OH, PA(2). RI?, WV

States marked with a ? will be close to the boundary in 2010.  States marked with * will either lose a seat in 2010 or 2020.  NY will lose a total of 3 over the 2 decades, either losing 1 then 2, or 2 then 1.

Winners: AZ, CO, FL, GA?2, ID?, NV, NC, OR*, SC*, TX*4, UT, WA.

States marked with a ? will be close to the boundary in 2020.  States marked with * will either gain a seat in 2010 or 2020.  TX will gain a total of 6 or 7.  This could be 4,2; 3,3; 4;3 or 3;4.

The 3rd column is the projected number of seats in 2010.

The 4th column is the project increase or decrease in population from 2000 to 2010.  The USA50 population is expected to increase by 9.8%.   States growing at a slower rate are losing representation, since their share of the population is decreasing.  FL will catch NY about 2014.  By 2010 GA will catch MI, and NC will catch by MI mid-decade.  NJ will have been displaced from the top 10.

The top 10 in 2010: CA, TX, NY, FL+, IL, PA, OH, GA+, MI, NC+.

States marked with a + will gain another place in the next decade.  The next entrant in the Top 10 will probably be AZ but it will be a while around 2030, and they will pass MI, NJ, and VA.

The last column is the change that a State would need in order to increase its representation by one or lose its final seat.  For example, Minnesota would hold on to its 8th seat if it increases by 7.7% rather than 7.5%.  South Carolina would not gain a seat if its increase was 14.2% rather than 14.1%.  Generally, the smaller the percentage, the if-ier the final seat is.  But projections of larger population changes likely have greater error.  There's a pretty reasonable chance that Texas won't be close to the 435th or 436th seat.


Alabama               6.627   -0.250   7    5.9%  -2.7%
Alaska                1.102    0.013   1   11.6%  43.0%
Arizona               9.605    1.676  10   33.2%  -1.8%
Arkansas              4.094   -0.059   4    8.3%   9.3%
California           52.489    0.247  53   10.4%  -0.7%
Colorado              7.156    0.502   7   18.2%   4.1%
Connecticut           4.968   -0.308   5    3.4% -10.2%
Delaware              1.350    0.042   1   14.0%  12.0%
Florida              26.485    1.830  27   18.1%  -0.7%
Georgia              14.095    1.459  14   22.6%   2.2%
Hawaii                1.899   -0.036   2    7.7% -23.4%
Idaho                 2.270    0.212   2   21.9%   9.9%
Illinois             18.260   -0.901  18    4.7%   0.6%
Indiana               9.054   -0.337   9    5.9%   4.2%
Iowa                  4.266   -0.275   4    3.2%   4.8%
Kansas                3.999   -0.178   4    5.1% -13.3%
Kentucky              6.082   -0.172   6    6.8%   6.2%
Louisiana             6.193   -0.717   6   -1.6%   4.3%
Maine                 1.926   -0.103   2    4.0% -24.5%
Maryland              8.026   -0.158   8    7.8%   5.2%
Massachusetts         9.178   -0.627   9    2.8%   2.8%
Michigan             14.067   -1.269  14    0.8%   2.4%
Minnesota             7.436   -0.168   7    7.5%   0.2%
Mississippi           4.183   -0.233   4    4.0%   6.9%
Missouri              8.408   -0.238   8    6.9%   0.4%
Montana               1.466   -0.013   1    8.8%   1.9%
Nebraska              2.574   -0.112   3    5.1%  -3.7%
Nevada                3.891    0.769   4   37.6% -10.9%
New Hampshire         1.937   -0.033   2    7.9% -25.0%
New Jersey           12.277   -0.710  12    3.9%   1.1%
New Mexico            2.880    0.031   3   11.1% -14.3%
New York             27.513   -1.759  28    3.3%  -0.8%
North Carolina       13.332    0.912  13   18.0%   0.6%
North Dakota          1.030   -0.080   1   -0.1%  56.0%
Ohio                 16.167   -1.350  16    1.4%   1.4%
Oklahoma              5.195   -0.151   5    6.8%   5.2%
Oregon                5.459    0.158   5   13.2%   0.1%
Pennsylvania         17.527   -1.420  18    1.7%  -0.9%
Rhode Island          1.558   -0.135   2    0.3%  -4.9%
South Carolina        6.455    0.248   7   14.3%  -0.1%
South Dakota          1.248   -0.019   1    8.0%  22.8%
Tennessee             8.901    0.112   9   11.3%  -5.2%
Texas                35.279    3.116  36   20.5%  -0.1%
Utah                  4.041    0.560   4   27.9%  10.8%
Vermont               1.008   -0.055   1    2.5%  60.4%
Virginia             11.132    0.202  11   11.9%   2.6%
Washington            9.412    0.308   9   13.6%   0.2%
West Virginia         2.597   -0.237   3    0.4%  -4.6%
Wisconsin             7.995   -0.293   8    6.0%  -6.9%
Wyoming               0.909   -0.002   1    9.6%  84.9%

[jimrtex]

Utah believed that it would have given them the 435th seat had the Census counted the LDS overseas like they do federal employees. The sued the Census, but were denied by the Federal Court and the SCOTUS refused to hear the case.

Here are a couple of interesting papers discussing the logistics, etc. of counting overseas persons.


Americans Overseas

[Josh/Devilman88]

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?

[muon2]

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?

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.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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

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.

[Brittain33]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

[Josh/Devilman88]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

Well, NC is growing fastter then GA and SC. You would think NC would get another seat, if both GA and SC got/getting one.

[Verily]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

Well, NC is growing fastter then GA and SC. You would think NC would get another seat, if both GA and SC got/getting one.

North Carolina only just barely beat out Utah for the last seat in the 2000 Census. So it had further to grow to gain another seat.

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

Well, NC is growing fastter then GA and SC. You would think NC would get another seat, if both GA and SC got/getting one.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/census-bureau-r.html

According to these estimates, Georgia grew by 18.3% from 2000-2008, while North Carolina grew by only 14.6% during the same period. SC grew by only 11.7%, right behind North Carolina. I'm surprised, because I thought NC was growing faster than GA too.

[Tender Branson]

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.

NC and SC are both in the top ranks for unemployment rates right now... I'm not sure what is hitting South Carolina, but the Charlotte area, at least, is going to have problems with the banking industry. I don't know if these problems are comparatively worse than those in other states or not.

Conversely, NC gains from Florida's losses.

NC and SC has alot of factories that are closing down. Bev Perdue is trying to work out a plan to replace them factory job with bio-tech jobs/greenjobs, or something like that.

And Mark Sanford is letting the market replace them!

Seriously, I did find it was interesting that NC wasn't gaining anything. Georgia is growing much faster than North Carolina according to the estimates, and SC is growing about the same rate as North Carolina. The Greenville area is really exploding in SC. We're running out of land in Charleston.

Well, NC is growing fastter then GA and SC. You would think NC would get another seat, if both GA and SC got/getting one.

http://blogs.usatoday.com/ondeadline/2008/12/census-bureau-r.html

According to these estimates, Georgia grew by 18.3% from 2000-2008, while North Carolina grew by only 14.6% during the same period. SC grew by only 11.7%, right behind North Carolina. I'm surprised, because I thought NC was growing faster than GA too.

Last year it did. GA's growth was faster than NC's at least from 1970-2007 ...

[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.

[ottermax]

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.

[Padfoot]

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.