What the new Census estimates mean (w/ POLL!)

Today the Census Bureau released its new population estimates for all 50 states. Three states - New York, Rhode Island, and Massachusetts, lost population. The fastest growth was in Nevada, Arizona, Idaho, and Florida.

These trends are unsurprising. They've been continuing for decades. But they have a real effect on the apportionment of seats in the House of Representatives every decade.

Read my estimated changes below the fold...

We already know that because of population trends since the 2000 Census, if Congress were re-apportioned in 2004, the following changes would have happened:

Arizona +1 seat, for a total of 9
Florida +1 seat, for a total of 26
Iowa -1 seat, for a total of 4
New York -1 seat, for a total of 28
Ohio -1 seat, for a total of 17
Pennsylvania -1 seat, for a total of 18
Texas +1 seat, for a total of 33
Utah +1 seat, for a total of 4

So as of last year, Arizona, Florida, Texas, and Utah each would have gained one seat in Congress at the expense of Iowa, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. We know this.

But since 2005's estimates were just released today, the number-crunchers in Washington haven't played the apportionment game yet, and probably won't give us their findings until January.

With a quick use of my calculator, however, I made my own guesses.

Because Massachusetts was already barely holding onto its 10th seat in 2004, and indeed lost population between July 2004 and July 2005, it is hardly unsurprising that the Bay State probably will have lost that last seat, for a new total of 9. Where that new seat goes to is not quite as sure. Both Nevada and Texas would appear to be competing for the honor. My calculator indicated the winner would be Nevada, but since I can't count military personnel, Texas may indeed be the winner.

It's annoying. I wish those geeks in Washington would get to work!

Anyway, if my guess is correct, yet another seat would have swung from Rust Belt to Sun Belt in 2005, going from the Old America (Massachusetts) to the New (Nevada). And indeed, Massachusetts is not the only weakling this year. Missouri, Minnesota, and Louisiana are holding onto their final seats by a bare thread, and indeed by 2006, because of Hurricane Katrina, we can assume Louisiana will have lost that 7th seat.

Anyway, just my analysis. Once Election Data Services, or some other think-tank, comes up with their estimates, we can be more sure. For now, we know Massachusetts has lost and Nevada has probably gained this year. Indeed, perhaps a second seat changed hands too, if my calculator is off: Missouri may have lost to Texas, or Minnesota to Texas. It's just one more nail in the coffin of the Rust Belt.

*Update*: Election Data Services has confirmed by calculation. Massachusetts lost, Nevada gained. Texas remained unchanged, but was next-in-line for a gain, with Missouri in the most tenuous position, barely holding onto its 9th seat. Assuming Hurricane Katrina caused Louisiana to lose, we can assume that seat will go to Texas, and if Missouri and Minnesota lose California and Georgia are the likely winners.

Poll
Will the North ever recover?
No. The future of this country is South and West.
Yes. The tide will turn, and someday we will see Las Vegas the way we see Detroit today.

Votes: 34
Results : Vote Link : Polls

Display:


Water (none / 0)

As the population grows in areas like Las Vegas natural resources such as water will be stretched thin causing water shortages.  The pendelum will then swing the other way and people will start going back to the north.  Hurricanes Katrina, Rita etc. will cause people to be wary of moving to states such as Florida, Texas, Mississippi, and Lousiana.  
by sam89 on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 09:01:39 PM EST

Re: Water (none / 0)

Well, I would have thought so, but Nevada, Arizona, Florida, and Texas remain the perennial winners. Of course, if drought and hurricanes become a BIG, dramatic problem, in the future, that should drive people back to the Great Lakes, for example. But until climate change becomes obvious, and dramatic, I think this trend will continue as it has for decades.
by raginillinoian on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 09:04:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Water (none / 0)

What will happen is that the additional clout in Congress will result in increased resources being devoted to Sunbelt states.  If that means subsidized desalinization projects to get more water then thats what we will spend our money on.  No way around it unless the Rustbelt states make a concerted effort to recruit emigrants.  Really don't see that happening tho.
by Demo Dan in Dayton on Thu Dec 22, 2005 at 10:34:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Sam89 is right.. (none / 0)

Global warming threatens the viability of having so many people living in low-lying coastal areas and drought-prone areas like the Southwest. Some places, like Florida, are so low that they could virtually disappear if the Ross Ice Shelf detaches.. (which could raise global sea levels by an indeterminate amount.) Similar changes could happen if the Greenland icecap melts.

Some places (in places like California and the Mogollon Plateau) could also see big - catastrophic fires if the dirt dries up.. These areas are already under stress from changing climate and water diversion..

We are in denial on how much we are impacting this planet.. unfortunately..

by ultraworld on Sun Dec 25, 2005 at 11:52:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Sam89 is right.. (none / 0)

see http://dispatchesfromthevanishingworld.com/dispatch5/kyoto7.html

"Another climate-driven disaster in the making that could dwarf even the shutting down of the Gulf Stream is the possibility that the Western Antarctic Ice Sheet might break off, which could happen at any time and would cause sea level to rise five to ten meters. "WAIS [as the people who are watching it refer to it] has not budged since warming began, but when it does start to slip, it will happen very fast, and a very large amount of ice will find itself in the ocean, and you can say goodbye to the Maldives and Bangladesh," Elliot Norse told me. "The break-off will be a non-linear response to linear input. Nature works most often by the straw that breaks the camel principle, or as Malcolm X said of Kennedy's assassination, by the chickens coming home to roost."

        I contacted John Behrendt, an expert on  WAIS and a colleague of Kevin Trenberth at the NARC in Boulder. He began by explaining the difference between an ice shelf and an ice sheet. The Ross Ice Shelf is already floating. It freezes into pack ice in winter and is open in the summer. WAIS, however, is grounded, attached to the Ross Sea's continental shelf, a marine-bed ice sheet that has been there for the last 20 or 30 million years, flowing off at its edge and being remade by snow. It is a huge chunk of snow and ice, 500 miles  long by 500 wide and about 9,000 feet thick (12,000 feet at its thickest point), about half of which is below sea level.  Six ice streams flow beneath it, and it is already sliding on mud, "like syrup poured on a table," Behrendt explained, toward the Ross Ice Shelf and the open water beyond at the rate of 1200 feet a year. Global warming or the active volcanos under the sheet, could cause it to deglaciate, to break off and collapse, as happened with the Laurentide Ice Sheet a hundred thousand years ago and is happening now with the glaciers at the Glacier Bay National Park, Alaska, which are rapidly breaking off and slipping into the sea. "If WAIS deglaciates and surges out into the sea, sea level will equalize all over the earth at about six meters, or twenty feet, higher than it is now," Behrendt estimated. "But it is controversial that it will even do this," he cautioned, "and it would take several centuries at least to effect the rise. It's the snow and ice that is above sea level that will break up into icebergs that will gradually melt and cause the rise."  Whew, I thought. There's time on this one. Norse had made it sound as if the rise could happen in a quickly as a year.

      Behrendt suggested I talk to his colleague, Mark Meier, an authority on sea-level rise, for a second opinion. Meier told me that in the last 100 years the sea has been rising by about two millimeters a year-- "more than in the past, and it will rise by more in the future. One third is due to the heating and expansion of the mix zone, the top hunded meters, one third is due to glaciers melting, and the other third is from what ? Tk.". As far as WAIS was concerned, he confirmed that "it's the top 4500 feet that matters,  and the expected sea level rise from their melting cannot happen quickly. It will take hundreds of years. But already," he said, "global warming is causing many of the ice shelves that are already floating to break up and drift out to sea as icebergs. This will relieve some of the back pressure on the ice streams that feed the shelves and will draw down the ice sheets from the [Antarctic] continent. The mid-range estimate for sea-level rise over the next century is twenty inches."

*  

Continue to page 8 "

by ultraworld on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 12:16:50 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Forget that (none / 0)

We just have to start winning these states. We should try to win in the South -- contest every election, as has been said -- but we should focus on the Western states. That's where the future growth of this country is, and in the meantime, they're small states with cheaper media markets -- and they each still have as many Senators as the big states.
TAKE BACK OUR PARTY: Democracy Bonds
by LiberalFromPA on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 09:03:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

We have to win the Govenorship in FL (none / 0)

this year if we don't the Dems. will lose more seats nationwide.
Running the Davis, Nelson Klein team in Florida.
by Liberal on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 12:51:24 AM EST

Too Complex For One Poll. (none / 0)

Water. That is the 800 pound gorilla here. Nevada and Arizona will soon drain their aquifers. The deficit will not be made up by desalinization, which will prove to be too energy-dependent. Most of Florida will literally be under water if only a few of the effects leading to rising sea level turn out to be real. Plus it seems very likely that there will be an intensification of hurricanes. And energy is obviously becoming a much greater problem. So there will not be much air-conditioning in the hottest places.

Then, no matter how conservative people may be, they will not put up for ever with politicians who keep giving everything to the fat-cats while the environment makes their homes worthless. Of course, California will not be turning to Arnie when the Big One hits.

Right now, these people are simply sleepwalking in a hurricane. The vote is really all they have. And the computer voting scam is taking that completely away (even with paper trails, a.k.a. unofficial ballots).

They will be no more afraid of Osama Bin Laden than they are of Monica Lewinsky when the environment gives out on them. Certain Russian immigrants have an expression. The land of the stupid. They have this amazingly practical cynicism. They know which way the wind is blowing.

by blues on Fri Dec 23, 2005 at 11:54:29 PM EST

Yes I think around 2030 (none / 0)

I think that the upper midwest, where the dairy states are: MI, WI, and MN will gain electoral votes around that time and recover some of the losses that have happened over time.  Soon those dairy states which all eyes are on will soon hold just as much weight as the southwest in electoral meaning.  People like farming especially dairy, and people will increasingly go up there.
by mleflo2 on Mon Dec 26, 2005 at 09:52:36 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.