Page 1 of 1

### US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Tue Dec 31, 2019 6:39 am
And, as I always do when estimates are out, I calculate what would happen if reapportionment were to happen with the data put out.

States that gain a seat:
Texas (+2) at 38
Florida (+1) at 28
North Carolina (+1) at 14
Arizona (+1) at 10
Oregon (+1) at 6
Montana (+1) at 2

States that lose a seat:
California (-1) at 52
New York (-1) at 26
Pennsylvania (-1) at 17
Illinois (-1) at 17
Michigan (-1) at 13
Minnesota (-1) at 7
West Virginia (-1) at 2
Rhode Island (-1) at 1

After allocating 1 seat to each state, reapportionment uses a complex formula to redistribute seats. The final 5 seats are allocated as follows:
Seat 381: Arizona (10th seat, gained)
Seat 382: New York (26th seat, danger of losing)
Seat 383: Alabama (7th seat, danger of losing)
Seat 384: Montana (2nd seat, gained)
Seat 385, which is also the final seat: Ohio (16th seat, danger of losing)

The next 5 seats to be allocated:
Seat 386: Florida (29th seat, missed out on gain)
Seat 387: Minnesota (8th seat, lost)
Seat 388: Texas (39th seat, missed out on gain)
Seat 389: California (53rd seat, lost)
Seat 390: Rhode Island (2nd seat, lost)

Trends are still clear. South and West gain at the expense of Midwest and Northeast. Based on the numbers here, Texas should get 3 seats, Florida should get 2, CO, AZ, NC, MT, and OR should gain 1 seat each, and CA, MI, PA, IL, OH, RI, WV, AL, and MN should each lose a seat, with NY losing 2.

Puerto Rico had a net gain of around 340 people, the first net gain in years.

Fun fact: I finally wrote a computer program to deal with this BUT I still had to resort to my Excel spreadsheet to calculated the seat allocation. The program just spits out the final numbers instead of the allocation.

### Re: Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 12:03 am
I’d love to see Florida do away with the winner takes all rules they have in their laws. A big, swing state doing this would be great. And might buy some peace for its residents during election time.

Not sure Florida politicians want to lose all the attention they get during elections, however.

### Re: Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 7:19 am
PPVRA wrote:
I’d love to see Florida do away with the winner takes all rules they have in their laws. A big, swing state doing this would be great. And might buy some peace for its residents during election time.

Not sure Florida politicians want to lose all the attention they get during elections, however.

Why just Florida? It would better if all states switched to allocating by winners of each congressional district plus a bonus of 2 for he overall state winner.

### Re: US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Thu Jan 02, 2020 4:14 pm
Congressional districts are gerrymandered. There should be no allocation of votes for a national level president based on those gerrymandered districts. The electoral college already gives weigh to the districts themselves as they are used for the final count. We should not make it a double count.

https://www2.census.gov/programs-survey ... 19-01.xlsx

There are some states that continue to shrink in the Rust Belt and North.
The states that have seen growth continue to see more.

### Re: Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Fri Jan 03, 2020 3:33 am
flyingclrs727 wrote:
It would better if all states switched to allocating by winners of each congressional district plus a bonus of 2 for he overall state winner.

Allocating proportionally to the vote total is the best way to maximize turnout under the current system.

Allocating by congressional district will invite gerrymandering to a point which we've never seen before. 270ToWin had an analysis of it for the 2012 and 2016 elections.

Or, if people insist on WTA, then something akin to the NPVIC that some states have signed up for will provide the ultimate solution.

### Re: Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Sat Jan 04, 2020 7:45 pm
PPVRA wrote:
I’d love to see Florida do away with the winner takes all rules they have in their laws. A big, swing state doing this would be great. And might buy some peace for its residents during election time.

Not sure Florida politicians want to lose all the attention they get during elections, however.

I’m still on the split the electoral vote bandwagon. Split House count electors by percentage won statewide, split the Senate count electors to the top to vote getters if no one gets 50% +1 and award both Senate counts to a 50% +1 winner based on statewide counts It even makes third party candidates relevant to the outcome as they could at least capture a few electoral votes making them somewhat relevant initially and more relevant over time. Would certainly change the dynamics better than this nonsense of giving all the electors to the national popular vote winner that just nullifies the votes for one candidate or another in a given state. That will just result in even less voter participation. Make the candidates work for votes in all states and make election night totally unpredictable.

### Re: US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 4:21 am
Too bad you don't get rid of mn 5th

### Re: US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Mon Jan 06, 2020 2:27 pm
Thunderbolt500 wrote:
Too bad you don't get rid of mn 5th

Send her a bill. She clearly lives rent free in your head. To the point where you are commenting off topic.

### Re: US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 3:32 am
A part of me wonders if for the House of Representatives, we should change it to 435 constituencies without regard to state boundaries at all, similar to the way the UK has parliament set up. The states would still have their say in the Senate, but you would prevent the state legislatures from gerrymandering the districts. Then an electoral vote where each district elects one elector in addition to two statewide electors, could make up the presidency, since gerrymandering isn't an issue anymore. As long as gerrymandering exists, the thought of electoral votes being decided by district as well as states seems a little bit much.

Interestingly enough, of all the states forecast to lose seats by this, most of them are blue states, or states that lean blue and voted for Trump (Only WV would classify as red). A couple of Blue states in Oregon and Colorado gain but most of the gains are in either Red States or Purple states. The question is, if these people moving from Blue states are blue voters, could some of these red states (noteably Texas) turn?

Now for the seats that would be lost, and the question becomes, who gets redistricted out of office. There was an article somewhere that I came across suggesting that NY Democrats may actually eliminate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's district and force her to run against someone else, possibly Nydia Velazquez. I suspect that although establishment democrats may want this, they would either look upstate or maybe to long island. In Pennsylvania, republicans still control the legislature, and would probably look to either the Philly Suburbs or somewhere near Pittsburg. In Illinois, if Dan Lapinski survives a primary challenge this year, I suspect he may go as the Liberal Base of the party cannot stand him. Minnesota is a state that surprises me to see on this list. If the DFL still controls the legislature, my guess is they would go after Michele Bachman's old seat. I don't know Michigan well enough, but this would be the second straight census in which they lose seats. I don't recall who controls the legislature in Michigan but if its the GOP, they will go after a Detroit district. If its the Democrats, they would probably look to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. California is water under the bridge since that is controlled by a non partisan group. Rhode Island the same as with one district, the two reps would battle in a primary, if one of them doesn't make the jump to the Senate.

It will be very interesting to see how this all plays out.

### Re: US Census estimates for 2019 are out

Posted: Tue Jan 07, 2020 5:01 am
apodino wrote:
A part of me wonders if for the House of Representatives, we should change it to 435 constituencies without regard to state boundaries at all, similar to the way the UK has parliament set up. The states would still have their say in the Senate, but you would prevent the state legislatures from gerrymandering the districts. Then an electoral vote where each district elects one elector in addition to two statewide electors, could make up the presidency, since gerrymandering isn't an issue anymore. As long as gerrymandering exists, the thought of electoral votes being decided by district as well as states seems a little bit much.

I've thought about that as well. Make it a true population-centric chamber vs the current setup. In the end, what's the point of California sending 53 reps to the House as a state if they don't vote for what benefits their constituents but rather their parties?

The other thing to do, so that states never truly lose seats, is make each delegation proportional to the smallest state (aka. Wyoming Rule). If CA has 66x the population of WY, it should have 66x more representation in the House than WY. With the last results, I believe it came out to about 541 representatives in total, but I'd rather pay for 541 reps knowing that each state's population is evenly represented (of course, some win and some lose. SD is the smallest state to gain a second seat under this rule...ND (barely), AK, VT, and WY get stuck with one seat each).

apodino wrote:
Interestingly enough, of all the states forecast to lose seats by this, most of them are blue states, or states that lean blue and voted for Trump (Only WV would classify as red). A couple of Blue states in Oregon and Colorado gain but most of the gains are in either Red States or Purple states. The question is, if these people moving from Blue states are blue voters, could some of these red states (noteably Texas) turn?

Arizona turned decidedly purple in 2018, with the election of Sinema to the Senate, the House delegation being flipped 5-4 to Democrats, and its legislature being held by Republicans by the thinnest of margins (2 seats in the House (1 seat would tie the chamber); 4 seats in the Senate (2 seats would tie it)). With Arizona gaining one more House seat the next decade, it is possible its delegation could be evenly split for the decade at 5-5 (especially since it's a commission which draws the lines).

As for Texas, Democrats think they have a shot at retaking the House in 2020. But as you well note, a lot of people moving to Texas are likely fleeing blue states (from the north due to the cold, and from the west due to high costs), so it may be possible to see Texas turning shades of purple this next decade.

Florida is still a huge tossup considering that Republicans almost always get a razor thin edge in elections. But even now, its House delegation is 14-13 for the GOP and with potentially two more seats being added, it's likely not gonna lose its status as a swing state. The other thing to note is who is moving there too. It is often retirees, but the Hispanic boom is what keeps the state politics from straying too far to the right.

apodino wrote:
Now for the seats that would be lost, and the question becomes, who gets redistricted out of office. There was an article somewhere that I came across suggesting that NY Democrats may actually eliminate Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's district and force her to run against someone else, possibly Nydia Velazquez. I suspect that although establishment democrats may want this, they would either look upstate or maybe to long island. In Pennsylvania, republicans still control the legislature, and would probably look to either the Philly Suburbs or somewhere near Pittsburg. In Illinois, if Dan Lapinski survives a primary challenge this year, I suspect he may go as the Liberal Base of the party cannot stand him. Minnesota is a state that surprises me to see on this list. If the DFL still controls the legislature, my guess is they would go after Michele Bachman's old seat. I don't know Michigan well enough, but this would be the second straight census in which they lose seats. I don't recall who controls the legislature in Michigan but if its the GOP, they will go after a Detroit district. If its the Democrats, they would probably look to the northern part of the Lower Peninsula. California is water under the bridge since that is controlled by a non partisan group. Rhode Island the same as with one district, the two reps would battle in a primary, if one of them doesn't make the jump to the Senate.

In some states, there's only so many people you can try to draw out before you have to sacrifice one of your own. For example, when OH and MO lost a seat, Republicans were able to close safe blue districts and reduce the number of Democrat-leaning districts. But for the next round, if OH loses a district, there's only so much you can draw out a Democrat incumbent. You'd have to crack the district, and that will likely invite a lawsuit. So in that sense, you either pack a district (make it smaller so that other potential voters are placed into safe districts for your party), or try to be the good person and make the districts more competitive.

If you look at how MO's congressional districts evolved, MO-1 remained small. MO-3 took over most of what was MO-9 (around the STL area and into the country side), MO-2 was placed in the SW of STL (a conservative, affluent area), and MO-3's representative had to face a primary with MO-1's representative. MO-5 was just urban KC; after redistricting, MO-5 was stretched into the country side.