Population Data Show More Movement 
South and West
By _Sean Trende_ (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/sean_trende/)  - 
December 30, 2013 


_www.realclearpolitics_ (http://www.realclearpolitics) 
 

It's that most wonderful time of the year for numbers geeks, when the  
Census Bureau releases its annual figures for changes in the U.S. population.  
While these numbers are estimates, they do give us some insight into how the  
population is shifting.
 
Once again, we're seeing substantial movement toward the South and West. 
The  biggest population gains from 2012 to 2013 came in Texas (387,000 
people),  California (333,000), Florida (232,000), North Carolina (100,000), 
and 
Colorado  (79,000). Meanwhile, the Northeast continues its trend of remaining 
stagnant.  West Virginia and Maine show very slight actual decreases, while 
Vermont, Rhode  Island, and New Hampshire all essentially remain the same. 
In terms of how this relates to electoral politics, the most interesting 
way  of massaging the data at this point is to compare them to the 2010 
numbers, and  extrapolate those changes to how the House of Representatives 
will 
apportion its  seats in 2020. 
In 2011, I came up with the _following results_ 
(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2011/12/28/what_2010_census_tells_us_about_2020_reapportionme
nt.html) : 
Winners: California (+1), Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), North  Carolina 
(+1), Oregon (+1), Texas (+3) 
Losers: Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), New  York (-1), Ohio 
(-1), Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), West Virginia  (-1) 
In 2012, I predicted the following results, using what we might call a 
simple  linear extrapolation (taking the difference between the 2010 and 2012 
numbers,  multiplied by five, and adding that to the 2010 figures): 
Winners: California (+1), Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), North  Carolina 
(+1), Texas (+2), Virginia (+1) 
Losers: Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Ohio  (-1), 
Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), West Virginia (-1) 
Using this method for 2013 (taking the difference between the 2010 and 2013 
 numbers, multiplying by 3.3, and adding that to the 2010 figures), we come 
up  with the following: 
Winners: Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), North Carolina (+1),  Texas (+3), 
Virginia (+1) 
Losers: Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), Minnesota (-1), Ohio  (-1), 
Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), West Virginia (-1) 
This would result in minor changes to the Electoral College in 2024: three  
votes would be subtracted from Democratic “blue” states, and added to 
Republican  “red” states. This also suggests that we would see a continuation 
of the trends  from 2012: 
New York would fail to lose a seat for the first time since the 1940 
census.  Michigan would fall to 13 seats, its fewest since the 1910 
reapportionment,  while Ohio would fall to 15 congressional districts, the 
fewest the 
Buckeye  State has boasted since the 1820s. California would fail to gain seats 
for two  apportionments in a row—the first time that has happened since it 
attained  statehood in 1850. Rhode Island becomes a single-seat state. 
We should note that there are several close calls. The last five seats  
apportioned are Florida’s 28th, Virginia’s 12th, New York’s 27th, Alabama’s 
7th,  and Texas’ 39th congressional districts. The states just missing 
additional  seats are California (its next seat will be its 54th), Oregon, and 
Montana,  while West Virginia and Minnesota just barely miss out on keeping 
their 3rd and  8th seats, respectively. If these numbers hold, Montana would 
narrowly miss out  on regaining the second seat it lost after the 1990 census. 
In these on-the-cusp  states, the calculus could easily change by 2020. 
But under the theory that population shifts signify trends, the recent 
shifts  should be counted more heavily. So rather than counting all of the 
changes from  2010 to July of this year equally, let’s take the average of the 
shift from 2011  to 2012 and from 2012 to 2013, weighting the latter shift 
twice. Under that  scenario, we get the following results: 
Winners: Colorado (+1), Florida (+1), Montana (+1), North  Carolina (+1), 
Texas (+2), Virginia (+1) 
Losers: Illinois (-1), Michigan (-1), New York (-1), Ohio  (-1), 
Pennsylvania (-1), Rhode Island (-1), West Virginia (-1). 
Under this scenario, the last five seats go to Minnesota (8th), Alabama  
(7th), Virginia (12th), Montana (2nd), and Florida (28th). Just missing seats  
are New York (27th), California (54th), Texas (39th), Arizona (10th), and 
Oregon  (6th). 
This projects a total switch of 14 seats, net. When you control for the 
size  of the House (which was generally increased each decade between 1790 and 
1910),  this is the fewest number of seats switching between states in a 
given decade  since 1890, and ties for the third-fewest number of seats 
switching between  states in United States history. 
I’ve always found this method more valid. Using it gives us the following  
map: 
Again,  these estimates will get closer to what 2020 will actually look 
like over time.  The _2007  estimates_ 
(http://polidata.org/census/st007nca.pdf)  gave us a very good look at the 2010 
apportionment, but the _2003  
estimates_ (http://www.polidata.org/census/st003nca.pdf)  were still valuable 
for 
giving us a rough sketch of how things  would change. 
What would this mean in the long term? We can estimate what these trends  
would do to the apportionment in 2040 to get a better sense of the big 
picture.  Now, anything can happen in 30 years, so this should be considered 
for  
entertainment purposes only, but it does have some value in amplifying 
current  trends so that we can see them better: 
Three  things jump out. First, the shale boom in North Dakota is attracting 
enough  people to that corner of the country to help the state gain an 
extra  congressional district (it lost its second seat in the 1970 
apportionment). 
Second, the current trends are expected to continue, with the Northeast  
slowly bleeding seats and the Midwest hemorrhaging them. Texas is the big 
winner  here, gaining seven seats.  
Third, the massive population dislocations of the mid-to-late 20th century  
seem to be slowing down, as we are seeing a relatively small number of 
seats  shifting over the course of 30 years. This envisions only 38 seats, net, 
 
switching hands over the course of a 30-year span. Controlling for the size 
of  the House, this is the second-slowest rate of growth over such a time 
period in  U.S. history.  
Things may pick up again when and if the economy returns to normal, but for 
 now, the great slowdown of the 21st century isn’t just a story about the  
economy

-- 
-- 
Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community 
<[email protected]>
Google Group: http://groups.google.com/group/RadicalCentrism
Radical Centrism website and blog: http://RadicalCentrism.org

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Centroids: The Center of the Radical Centrist Community" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

Reply via email to