2010 Census

December 21, 2010 9:31 AM

The final data for the 2010 Census has just been released, showing the last decade's trends in population, growth and diversity.

Of course the most political aspect will be the reapportionment of Congressional districts based on the new data, with the new numbers appearing to be very favorable to the Republican Party in the 2012 election. (Votes in the Electoral College are based on the number of seats each state has in the House and Senate, with an additional 3 apportioned for the District of Columbia)

Texas was the biggest winner, gaining four additional House seats, while Ohio and New York both lose two. Over a dozen electoral votes that went to Barack Obama in the 2008 election have now shifted to states that voted for John McCain.

posted by XQUZYPHYR (68 comments total)

thank goodness because the Republican grip on power has been so tenuous in the last 30 years.
posted by DU at 9:33 AM on December 21, 2010 [5 favorites]

From Twitter: Gaining House seats: WA, NV, AZ, UT, TX, FL, GA, SC. Losing: IA, IL, MO, LA, MI, OH, PA, NY

Apportionment: AZ+1, FL+2, GA+1, NV+1, SC+1, TX+4, UT+1, WA+1, IL-1, IA-1, LA-1, MA-1, MI-1, MO-1, NJ-1, NY-2, OH-2, PA-1

Reapportionment loses Obama 6 EVs from '08 but leaves a path without VA, OH, FL, the NE2, IN, NC.

My beloved North Carolina would have been next in line for a new seat. Could have been mine!
posted by gerryblog at 9:35 AM on December 21, 2010

Remember in 2008 when everyone was proclaiming the end of the Republican party? Yeah...
posted by 2bucksplus at 9:35 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Remember in 2008 when everyone was proclaiming the end of the Republican party? Yeah...

Most of this growth is from immigration (of all sorts: international, intranational, and illegal), which will tend to make these red states bluer. From that perspective it's not such bad news.

Despite the results of last month's election, long-term demographic trends are still against a party that caters to the interests of white heterosexual male senior citizens to the exclusion of all other demographic groups. Just be patient, hold the line, and keep them from getting back in charge before they implode.
posted by gerryblog at 9:42 AM on December 21, 2010 [6 favorites]

This is the 9th census in a row that Pennsylvania has lost representation - 7th for NY and 5th for OH.
posted by maryr at 9:44 AM on December 21, 2010

I don't know if it's just me, but the interactive map not displaying any 2010 data.
posted by kuujjuarapik at 9:46 AM on December 21, 2010

Most of this growth is from immigration (of all sorts: international, intranational, and illegal), which will tend to make these red states bluer. From that perspective it's not such bad news.

Well the only problem here is that in all three of those examples, those people can't vote. It doesn't matter if they're illegal entrants or students on VISAs or people working toward citizenship. Only full United States citizens can vote.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:48 AM on December 21, 2010

VISAs = visas. Not the credit card. Doi.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:48 AM on December 21, 2010

Most overrepresented state: Surprisingly, not Wyoming, guarenteed a seat by the constitution, with 568,300/congressman, but Rhode Island, 527,624 per seat.

Most underrepresented state: Montana, with 994,416 one rep with Delaware following up at 900K/seat.
posted by maryr at 9:49 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Not official yet, I believe, but MA will also lose a seat.
posted by rollbiz at 9:51 AM on December 21, 2010

By "intranational" I meant U.S. citizens moving from places like PA and MI.

People working toward citizenship will be able to get eventually. Undocumented immigrants will get some sort of amnesty eventually, likely with a path to citizenship -- and their children are still citizens regardless.

I'm just trying to take a longer view than the next election cycle; the demographics of population growth in the U.S. is such that growth in red states means those states just got bluer.
posted by gerryblog at 9:51 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Also, it's probably likely that the huge increase in Texas isn't just in immigration but in the escalating prison population. Which again, is thousands of people added to the population who will never have voting rights.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 9:52 AM on December 21, 2010

(should have said: People working toward citizenship will be able to VOTE eventually.)
posted by gerryblog at 9:52 AM on December 21, 2010

Texas didn't gain 4,293,741 people from an increase in the prison population.
posted by gerryblog at 9:55 AM on December 21, 2010 [7 favorites]

This along with the 2005-2009 American Community Survey data released recently (previously) is guaranteed to supply endless datagasms.
posted by blucevalo at 9:57 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

WTF, New York? Get with the fucking.
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 9:58 AM on December 21, 2010 [6 favorites]

WTF, New York? Get with the fucking.

This is what happens when the city starts handing out condoms. Damn you, Bloomberg!
posted by Bromius at 9:59 AM on December 21, 2010 [4 favorites]

Texas didn't gain 4,293,741 people from an increase in the prison population.

Hence the use of the words "just" and "thousands of people.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 10:00 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Why did the population of Texas grow so much?
posted by demiurge at 10:00 AM on December 21, 2010

No state grew faster than Nevada (35%) in the 2000s, but that ride is over now, we've lost 100,000 people between 2008-2010.
posted by SirOmega at 10:00 AM on December 21, 2010

I'm shocked that Wisconsin didn't lose another seat.
posted by MikeMc at 10:01 AM on December 21, 2010

Okay, but "thousands" is basically a rounding error when you're talking about 4.3 million.
posted by gerryblog at 10:01 AM on December 21, 2010

Wait. Non-voting persons could towards House weightings? What a great scam!
posted by DU at 10:01 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Most underrepresented state: Montana, with 994,416 one rep with Delaware following up at 900K/seat.

Screw all of you.

Yours,

The 600,000 unrepresented citizens of Washington, DC
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2010 [39 favorites]

The future is prisons and math.
posted by saulgoodman at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2010

Wait. Non-voting persons could towards House weightings? What a great scam!

It's one of our proudest national traditions.
posted by gerryblog at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2010 [6 favorites]

This is what happens when the city starts handing out condoms. Damn you, Bloomberg!

Somewhere in a high-rise in midtown, Bloomberg, with tented fingers, gazes out the window and whispers to himself, "Excellent."
posted by milarepa at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Why did the population of Texas grow so much?

My guess is too much bbq, chili, and texas toast.
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 10:03 AM on December 21, 2010 [3 favorites]

the demographics of population growth
tautology

I'm just trying to take a longer view than the next election cycle
Glad someone is - most politicians I know don't take a longer view than the next menstrual cycle.

People working toward citizenship will be able to get eventually
"Fuck eventually, we want NOW!!"

Exhausted now....
posted by gallus at 10:05 AM on December 21, 2010

State, 10thReg. You guys win most underrepresented district 4evs.
posted by maryr at 10:05 AM on December 21, 2010

In the short term, this is very good for Republicans. But is that true in the long term? A lot of these changes are driven by Hispanic immigrants. Texas gets more seats now, but the way it's getting those seats bring us closer to the day when Texas becomes a viable target for Democrats. Same goes for Arizona -- and that's a state where Hispanics are getting increasingly radicalized against the GOP. This census takes six electoral votes from Barack Obama 2008 haul, but given the relationship between the Republican Party and the people who are driving these numbers, I think it's harder to say what the eventual impact will be.
posted by gerryblog at 10:06 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

It seems that a lot of the population growth in South Carolina is retirees moving to the beach towns from the frigid north.

And we also have a lot of retirees who moved to Florida for those balmy days moving back north to South Carolina for seasons.

And I'm not a republican, but I welcome diversity in the republican party in this state. We desperately need it.
posted by Kronur at 10:06 AM on December 21, 2010

In the short term, this is very good for Republicans. But is that true in the long term?

This is almost exactly what I was going to say except way more betterly said.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:07 AM on December 21, 2010

...and abstinence-only education coupled with a lack of abortion providers.
posted by leotrotsky at 10:09 AM on December 21, 2010

Why did the population of Texas grow so much?

Take your pick: warm weather, no state income tax, low business taxes, a balanced economy that can weather shocks (i.e. few-to-no "factory towns" that die), a high Hispanic/Catholic population that values large families, immigration, lots of space for sprawling cities and big suburbs...
posted by Cool Papa Bell at 10:09 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Yay, MN didn't lose any.
posted by ZeusHumms at 10:17 AM on December 21, 2010

WTF, New York? Get with the fucking.

I would imagine that it's my native Upstate that's really hurting nowadays.
posted by Sticherbeast at 10:18 AM on December 21, 2010

The moving mouse proclaims North Dakota to be the state with the wiggliest line AND the state with the greatest population loss since 1920. I guess it was all those over-optimistic farmers getting their free land and then realizing they should have read the fine print about the weather a little more closely before they hauled all their quilts and seeds and pump organs out there...
posted by kozad at 10:18 AM on December 21, 2010

Why did the population of Texas grow so much?

Katrina contributed some of that.
posted by willnot at 10:24 AM on December 21, 2010

Per Room Eight:

Looks like New York lost another two seats in Congress, but NYC's share of the state's population is going up. I wonder how they are going to take one or both of those seats out of New York City, without putting existing suburban legislators at risk from being voted against by new voters?

Texas gains four. It seems that most of the growth is in Blue portions of Red states.

Per the WSJ:

New York currently has 29 members in the House. Democrats dominate the downstate area, while Republicans will represent most of the upstate regions starting in January. The new figures also mean New Jersey’s congressional delegation will shrink to 12.

The new data does not decide which congressional seats in will be eliminated; that is up to the state legislature. Most experts believe the most likely part of New York to lose a representative is western region between Syracuse and Buffalo, which has seen its population stagnate or decline in some places.

The elimination of a second seat also means a congressional district around New York City may also be lost.

posted by zarq at 10:24 AM on December 21, 2010

Why did the population of Texas grow so much?

Katrina, and a free-market economy that is highly supportive of businesses.
posted by zarq at 10:27 AM on December 21, 2010

Intranational immigrants to a state certainly can vote.
posted by haveanicesummer at 10:28 AM on December 21, 2010

Yeah, I wonder how must of Texas gain came directly from Louisiana's loss...
posted by maryr at 10:32 AM on December 21, 2010

Congratulations to my birth state and "official" home until 2007, Michigan, in being the only state to lose population.

To contrast against Cool Papa Bell's assessment of Texas, here's Michgan: Cold weather, state income tax at 4.35%, meh business taxes, a very unbalanced economy dependent on auto makers that has been dying for 40+ years, number one in unemployment and a brain drain that is likely worse than any other state in quite a long time (no source for that, just a personal observation).

I am part of that problem.
posted by Mister Fabulous at 10:35 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

@ddayen is crunching some numbers regarding the basic arbitrariness of 435. He wants us to up the number to 650 Representatives at least.
posted by gerryblog at 10:36 AM on December 21, 2010

maryr: Most overrepresented state: Surprisingly, not Wyoming, guarenteed a seat by the constitution, with 568,300/congressman, but Rhode Island, 527,624 per seat.

As it should be. It is, after all, The Biggest Litle.
posted by Kattullus at 10:39 AM on December 21, 2010

The other bit of not-too-awful news is that Arizona, Georgia, South Carolina, and Texas are all covered statewide by the preclearance requirements of the Voting Rights Act.

Hrrrb. There's even a small chance this would actually increase Democratic representation in the House -- it's likely (but far from certain) that New York's losses will come at the expense of Republican incumbents, but it's at least possible that two of the new districts created down south will be either majority-black or majority-latino and reliably Democratic. I wouldn't bet on it, but it's at least possible.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 10:40 AM on December 21, 2010

I live in Seattle where many people complain that minorities are under-represented. Yet I live in the most racially diverse zip code in the United States.

Weirdly, I don't really see it. Perhaps the fact that I drive an old pickup truck acts as some sort of perceptual Faraday cage...
posted by Tube at 10:42 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

There's even a small chance this would actually increase Democratic representation in the House...

The one seat lost in Michigan will almost certainly be a Democratic one (probably a consolidation of John Conyers' and the seat formerly held by Kwame Kilpatrick's mom). The Governor, both houses of the Legislature, and the Supreme Court are all Republican (and it's the last one that really matters).
posted by Etrigan at 10:49 AM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Thank goodness the GOP swept state and governor races resoundingly in November, putting them in the best position to gerrymander the shit out of all these new districts and bolstering their position nationally for the next decade.
posted by Rhaomi at 10:50 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

Thank goodness the GOP swept state and governor races resoundingly in November, putting them in the best position to gerrymander the shit out of all these new districts and bolstering their position nationally for the next decade.

In Florida, we just adopted a constitutional amendment meant to prevent gerrymandering--but then we also just elected super-majorities of Republicans to office here, too, and their track record on complying with constitutional mandates (like the class-size amendment Florida adopted years ago which still hasn't been fully implemented and which lawmakers tried to modify through another ballot initiative in the most recent election cycle) is not exactly something to brag about. How the redistricting plays out in practice is going to be, well, an interesting show, I'm sure.
posted by saulgoodman at 11:02 AM on December 21, 2010

yeah, i'm not getting 2010 data either
posted by indigo4963 at 11:13 AM on December 21, 2010

This was a big deal in Minnesota, where we appear to have barely skated past a situation where we'd lose a house seat. If the DFL controlled the legislature, that would have meant bye-bye to the hated Michelle Bachmann. With a Rep. controlled legislature, that could have meant an attempt to put Keith Ellison and Betty McCollum into one district, eliminating one or the other.
posted by gimonca at 11:42 AM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

I moved to Texas.

But then again, I lived in Texas in 2000.

It was just the in-between parts where I wasn't here. So maybe I don't count after all.

Sniffle.
posted by jph at 11:43 AM on December 21, 2010

Texas didn't gain 4,293,741 people from an increase in the prison population.

That number sounds about right.

I live in Seattle where many people complain that minorities are under-represented. Yet I live in the most racially diverse zip code in the United States.

It seems like you could be both racially diverse and underrepresent non-white races at the same time, e.g. 60% white, and 2% of 20 other various groups.

How is "most racially diverse" even calculated?
posted by mrgrimm at 11:51 AM on December 21, 2010

Maybe I'm missing something, but in the Apportionment Data, can anyone tell me what the "seats gained or lost" for the whole United States (i.e. 12) means??
posted by JMOZ at 12:15 PM on December 21, 2010

Maybe I'm missing something, but in the Apportionment Data, can anyone tell me what the "seats gained or lost" for the whole United States (i.e. 12) means??

It's the number of seats that shifted from various states to other states -- add up all the gains but don't take away the losses. Or vice versa.
posted by Etrigan at 12:18 PM on December 21, 2010

Texas didn't gain 4,293,741 people from an increase in the prison population.

I know, they executed at least that many, right?
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 12:23 PM on December 21, 2010 [1 favorite]

w00t! Montana still has less than 1 million residents! That's fewer than some COUNTIES in other places!
posted by davidmsc at 12:27 PM on December 21, 2010

Etrigan- Ah, thanks. That makes sense. I figured it was something obvious, but the wording is quite strange to me.
posted by JMOZ at 12:34 PM on December 21, 2010

The formula for diversity is the same as for entropy:

-H = p ln p where each p is the fraction being measured.
posted by warbaby at 1:02 PM on December 21, 2010 [2 favorites]

Ugh Utah. You should have given us our 4th seat along with one for DC.
posted by msbutah at 2:24 PM on December 21, 2010

2010 graphics seem to be live now.
posted by maryr at 3:56 PM on December 21, 2010

Oh, shit. I just realized I lived in Iowa in 2000 and Florida now, which means I singlehandedly fucked up the country. Sorry about that.
posted by dirigibleman at 8:48 PM on December 21, 2010

I'm shocked that Wisconsin didn't lose another seat.

Wasn't in the cards, MikeMc. Although we grew more slowly than the US as a whole (6% vs. 10%), we went from about 3.5% over the 2000 national mean to just about 0.14% (that's 1/6 of a percent) over the national mean in 2010. In other words, we had become underrepresented (after losing a seat), but now we are actually the most exactly appropriately represented state. This could put us on a trend to losing one in 2020, though, unless that growth differential changes.
posted by dhartung at 10:04 PM on December 21, 2010

As gerryblog says, children of illegal immigrants (born in the US) are citizens, and birthrate is higher among immigrants than non-immigrants. Despite some crazy talk earlier in the year, the 14th amendment isn't going anywhere.
posted by wildcrdj at 12:31 AM on December 22, 2010

Despite some crazy talk earlier in the year, the 14th amendment isn't going anywhere.

Don't tell that to the new Republican majority in the house. They've said they plan to put this issue front and center when they take control of Congress. Modifying or repealing birthright citizenship is one of the first things on their agenda, and well, they're the body that sets the agenda, so we're going to be talking about this (not to mention, nullification, which they also plan to put front and center) a lot more over the next two years.
posted by saulgoodman at 6:59 AM on December 22, 2010

Birthright citizenship is the abortion of the 2010s -- Republicans will raise money and whip up their base by railing against it, chip around its edges, and end up doing absolutely nothing to address either what they claim is the problem or the symptoms it produces. They might even get up enough votes in Congress and a couple of border state legislatures to pass laws, which will be overturned by even Republican-appointed judges.

But the Republicans won't actually care beyond "raise money and whip up their base."
posted by Etrigan at 7:57 AM on December 22, 2010