Could Florida Lose an Electoral Vote? Could California?

Is it fair to call the 2010 estimates that have been done are conventional wisdom? (0.00 / 0)

Jess,
Doesn't the term conventional wisdom assume that something has been inadequately explored or unexamined? Now, I'll grant you the fact that in Florida there is a discrepancy between the figures the state has versus what the Census Bureau is projecting.  But even if we take a projection based on the changes between 2007 and 2008* -- numbers that reflect some of the most recent population patterns that you are referring to while discounting some of the changes from earlier in the decade (which may have been counter-acted) -- Florida would gain one seat.  

Is that the correct figure?  Well, we won't know that until the Census is actually tallied (or until we get some more current data from the Census).  But based on the data we currently have access to (and I'll come back later with the average across all the projection models), Florida gains.

Here are the projections from Election Data Services.

*We won't have the 2008-2009 data until the summer.

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 08:50:12 AM CDT

Josh (0.00 / 0)

The Florida numbers are snapshot July 2008 through July 2009, and whatever the base numbers projected off the 2000 Census, Florida has assured me that the July 2009 numbers, by county, are accurate, based on property rolls, school enrollments, notification from other states of new drivers licenses, and other data.

Therefore, while we can debate the number per se, there is no doubt that Florida has LOST population in absolute numbers.

From my conversations: Florida says that fewer seniors are in-migrating, although they haven't seen the out-migration they have with younger people (e.g. the working population). The rate of in-migration has dropped in HALF since its peak in the mid 2000's.

They are concerned because this is the first net population loss since the end of WW2, when the military population from the bases went home.

The people I spoke with believe that the numbers will be worse next year: the unemployment rate is specious in terms of actual unemployed because it's offset by the high percentage of retirees. It would be much higher, they said, if the median population were younger. They believe this will be the driving force for more people leaving.

And finally, it is again a game of shifting numbers. To gain a seat, Florida has to gain population not only in absolute numbers, but relative to the gains in other states.

I know you believe they'll gain a seat. I believe they'll lose one. This is one of those things where we'll find out when the numbers emerge. Just remember, the Florida numbers are based on base data LOWER than that of the Census. Thus, when the Feds come to count, if the current Florida numbers are correct, the loss is even greater.  

---

by: DocJess @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 09:07:17 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

I suppose my main beef was semantics-based. (0.00 / 0)

Again, I wasn't on board with the use of the phrase conventional wisdom there.  These figures, as you said, are very much a moving target.  Given the data that we have, though, Florida still rates as +1 next year.

That said, the trajectory is certainly in the direction of what you are talking about here, Jess.  Let's focus solely on Florida.  Here are the projections.

Projection Model/FL Pop. Estimate/+ or - Seats
2000-2008    19,000,775    +2
2004-2008    18,865,328    +2
2005-2008    18,760,334    +1
2006-2008    18,642,894    +1
2007-2008    18,587,791    +1

That the projection drops as the earlier years of the decade are withheld from the model is an indication that population has stagnated or decreased in the time since. And Florida is still on pace even with losses in recent years to gain overall relative to the 2000 Census.  In fact, the projection change from the 2000-2008 model to the 2007-2008 model for Florida is on par with the change in the US as a whole (both are revised down by about half a million people).

Let's look at this in a different way. The 2008 population projection (not what things are supposed to look like in 2010 based on 2008 numbers) for Florida is 18,328,340.  That's about a quarter of a million people short of the 2010 estimate based on the 2007-2008 numbers.  To lose a seat, Florida would have to lose and additional 183,603 people between now and the Census.  In other words, population loss between July 2009 and the Census would have to pick up almost threefold (compared to that 2008-2009 loss) to bring about a seat loss for Florida.  That's a lot of people.

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 10:47:35 AM CDT

Models (0.00 / 0)

Josh,

I understand the model. I understand the commitment TO modeling. Generally, I hear this a lot from economists who explain to me why U3 is a better marker than U6 in terms of assessing the economic health of the country.

But here's my non-model question.

If we look at the population numbers, by state, in 2010 and compare them to 2000, you and I both assume that the 2010 number for each individual state will higher than the 2000 number, predicated on immigration and net birth rate.

But what if, IF, there really is a mass migration away from states like Florida? Isn't it possible that the economy has so skewed things that a perfect storm is created where the state cannot support enough jobs for people to stay there? Not to mention the fact that any state with a higher median age (and Florida's is the highest) will lose people just because older people die at a higher statistical rate than younger people?

Look at the migration during the 30's - between FDR's alphabet soup programs and the dust bowl, there were huge population shifts. Ditto the late 40's as southerners relocated to the industrial north because of jobs.

I know that Florida gained about 2 million people between 2000 and 2008, making the growth slightly over 10%. But what if half that growth LEAVES? There would not be the replacement rate as the birth rate is lower than in many other states due to the median age of the population, there is a close to complete cessation of immigration TO the state.

Plus, as I said - they have to go somewhere....coming back to the relativity of the district numbers.

What I'm saying is that I understand why people model, and I understand that everything right now is a projection. You believe the models will hold, even if the final tallies are a little off. I believe that Florida CAN lose enough people to cost it a House seat.

I use the same reasoning when I argue with economists over whether or not the recession is over. The recession IS over if you use standard economic models, but it is not if to hold, 70% of the economy has to come from consumer spending. Your model is right if population trends continue, but if a million people leave Florida, COUNTER TO EVERY MODEL -- it doesn't.

Time will tell.  

---

by: DocJess @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 13:14:24 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Josh (0.00 / 0)

That elections data report you presented was released in 2006. I am not sure projections from that long ago can be relied upon. Whether a state would gain a seat in the House is determined not only by its own population increase, but its total population in relation to the other 49 states. It is possible to gain population and yet still lose a seat. That report did say this:

A review of the last 5 seats/ next 5 seats calculations demonstrates the extreme closeness and
volatility inherent in the 2010 population projections. At this point in time there are 13 seats
from the same number of states that are vying for the last six seats in the 435 member congressional
chamber. Six states are close to gaining an additional seat (Florida - 27th; North
Carolina - 14th; Oregon - 6th: South Carolina - 7th; Texas - 36th and Washington - 10th),
while seven states are very close to loosing a seat (California - 53rd; Illinois - 19th; Louisiana -
7th; Minnesota - 8th; Missouri - 9th; New York - 28th; Pennsylvania - 18th). Table J shows
the margin of population needed to gain the seat or the population by which the seat was lost for
each of the 2010 population projections under the five different trend models. Some of the margins
are the closest ever observed since Election Data Services, Inc. began doing apportionment
studies nearly 30 years ago. For example, using the 2006 to 2008 trend analysis, Oregon would
gain a 6th seat (and the last one issued, number 435) with just 2 persons to spare. Using the same
trend analysis, California would loose a seat (its 53rd) by a margin of only 18 people. "A number
of states have much to gain or lose by very small margins in the upcoming Census" said Brace.

---

by: Paul68 @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 13:43:08 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Jess and Paul, (0.00 / 0)

Jess,
Models are only as good as the data going into them.  These projections are based on incomplete data. [We're missing two years of information here.]  I don't know that I'd say that I think "the models will hold,"  I just think that given what we know of the population patterns, this particular perfect storm is less likely to come to pass.  

Paul,
I just rechecked the link and it continues to bring up a pdf file of a press release from December 22, 2008.  Your excerpt also mentions the "2006 to 2008 trend analysis;" that's a trend based on the 2006-2008 data, not projections of 2006-2008.

You are absolutely correct in pointing out the volatility of these models.  The beauty behind multiple trend models, though, is that we gain some stability across them.  That, despite the changes in years included, there is a pattern that emerges.  In Florida's case, the long term models were more optimistic (+2 seats) than the short term ones (+1).

If I did imply that only a state's population has an impact on its number of House seats, I didn't mean to.  All the Florida numbers are predicated on the changes projected in other states in the model.  

The bottom line is that the projections will change if there is a sudden population drop in Florida or anywhere else.  

---

by: Josh Putnam @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 15:31:47 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

Red and Blue (0.00 / 0)

I bet a lot of people look at this and think, "If DocJess is right, then it's bad news for Dems: blue states lose representation, and red states gain."

But there's another way to look at it: red states will get bluer.

Think about it. When a conservative goes and lives a while in a liberal region, sometimes they are unchanged by the experience, but many times their politics change.

Does it happen the other way? On local or regional issues, I think yes. Big city liberals who move out to mountain states, for instance, may modify their stance on gun ownership. But their stance on foreign policy, or gay rights, or torture? Doubtful.

Conservative know this; they even complain about it. They might describe it as colleges, or the media, or big cities "corrupting" their adult children, but they nevertheless admit that cultural mixing tends to promote liberalism. (Or, in the words of the fringe, it tends to "destroy the America" they knew.)

So when people move to California, and then back to Texas, they may be a bit less conservative than when they left. Certainly their kids may be. And Texas is trending blue anyway.

So in the long run, a change in demographics like Jessica suggests could actually be a good thing for moving this country to the left.  

---

by: SarahLawrence Scott @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 12:01:02 PM CDT

wow, wyomig is 1/72th the size of california (0.00 / 0)

and yet has 1/18th the reps....
really makes one think about uncapping the number of reps again, like it was before 1912

---

by: UplandPoet @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 16:11:39 PM CDT

i like 3 reps for the smallest state, and then 1 rep for every equal (0.00 / 0)

amount, now that would be one for every 180,000, giving us nearly 1700 reps. of course that isnt going to happen anytime soon.... and it is a little beside the point of this thread.

the real question is, how do we get to 270 on 2012, and how do we maintain a large majority in the house.

where do we gain, where do we lose?

in the presidential race, we lose two, but the gop loses one in Louisiana, butt hey go to three red states, but are texas and georgia gonna stay red? and then on the micro level, does the redistricting, even in red states give a us a chance to pick the seat back up?

---

by: UplandPoet @ Mon Oct 05, 2009 at 16:19:35 PM CDT

[ Parent ]