2020 Census Apportionment Results(census.gov)
census.gov
2020 Census Apportionment Results
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2021/2020-census-apportionment-results.html
91 comments
New York lost a congressional seat by falling 89 residents short. Given that the response window fell during the peak COVID crisis for NYC, it's hard to imagine it didn't have a negative impact on response rate.
I think there is a case for the opposite trend as well - anecdotally I and many others I know moved from NY to another state after responding to the census as a resident of NY. From what I observed (and when I responded) most of the census outreach in NYC was early in 2020 before the pandemic really hit. USPS published some data using change of address information that shows NY lost a good number of residents during 2020, how many of those responded to the census before or after they moved is a toss up though. No conclusion, just adding some context.
Yeah this is such a cluster. Makes you think that maybe we should not be doing point in time counts every ten years. That can have a huge impact on entire generations of people. American Community Surveys run far more often, showing that we can potentially change our ways.
Sure, but (ignoring the Constitutional decennial mandate, which also requires Census subjects to be defined 3 years before the actual counting [0]) what's a cost-effective alternative? The budget for the 2020 Census was $7+ billion [1].
And while the ACS annual surveys are considered accurate, what would be the right period for changing Congressional seat counts? It obviously can't be annual (since House terms are every 2 years).
[0] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/abo...
[1] https://www.census.gov/about/budget.html
And while the ACS annual surveys are considered accurate, what would be the right period for changing Congressional seat counts? It obviously can't be annual (since House terms are every 2 years).
[0] https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/decennial-census/abo...
[1] https://www.census.gov/about/budget.html
It's also astounding that this is the standard method when Apple/Google/Facebook/AT&T/Verizon could trivially give an instantaneous and probably more accurate count.
None of those companies are likely to uniformly count all of the things that the Census purports to do, such as race/ethnicity and housing status.
Even in California when we saw folks moving away I had a census worker on foot knocking door to door trying to ask about who lived in the various apartments - and at the time I know a lot of folks had moved away even if temporarily.
Weren’t many places affected by the pandemic and not just NYC? I guess you could argue given their raw numbers it affected them more.
Households received their census cards March 12-20 and "Census Day" -- when there was a big marketing push to get folks to respond -- was April 1. That was right when NYC was getting slammed, which happened before the rest of the country. Census workers then sent folks physically out to try and reach non-responding households, but that's super hard to do.
> That was right when NYC was getting slammed, which happened before the rest of the country.
Except California, but, mostly, yes.
Except California, but, mostly, yes.
NY was certainly hit harder earlier than other states, and during the census window.
AOC could lose her district and opt to run against Schumer instead of staying in the House. Payback for AOC beating another incumbent Democrat that ends in her beating Schumer for US Senate.
That is the most interesting thing that could happen at least.
That is the most interesting thing that could happen at least.
I see 89 residents and immediately think less of COVID and more of the Trump administration's effort to scare certain demographics off. The results were tainted by an administration that acted in bad faith.
Well, the absolute easiest way to gain 89 residents would have been to let the YIMBYs build one more highrise in Brooklyn.
For those wanting to know state congressional seat gains and losses...
Gaining 2 seats: Texas
Gaining 1 seat: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon
Losing 1 seat: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
Gaining 2 seats: Texas
Gaining 1 seat: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, Oregon
Losing 1 seat: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, West Virginia
how does this work for congresspeople already in those seats? does this only take effect next congress?
If you keep in mind that those seats are for the current term only, then it makes it a bit easier. For the purpose of the 2022 election, there is no one in those seats since the election process has not started.
The state legislators of each state will redistrict based on the census numbers (having the same number of seats doesn't mean the district doesn't change). Then the primary / election process starts with candidates declaring their intention to run for one of those seats. It is possible that two sitting Representatives will run for the same seat due to redistricting.
This is where you are going to see the preferences of the majority party and what Representatives they like. A nationally popular Representative might have their district removed and absorbed into two or more adjoining districts. This is often done when the Representative is more trouble to the local party then useful.
The state legislators of each state will redistrict based on the census numbers (having the same number of seats doesn't mean the district doesn't change). Then the primary / election process starts with candidates declaring their intention to run for one of those seats. It is possible that two sitting Representatives will run for the same seat due to redistricting.
This is where you are going to see the preferences of the majority party and what Representatives they like. A nationally popular Representative might have their district removed and absorbed into two or more adjoining districts. This is often done when the Representative is more trouble to the local party then useful.
The states will draw new district maps based on the new census data for each state, as well as accounting for any seat gains or loses. The rules for drawing those maps differ from state to state.
In the states that lose a seat, it depends. Sometimes two current members will face off for the new district that most closely resembles their two prior districts. Sometimes one of the members will just decide to retire.
In the states that lose a seat, it depends. Sometimes two current members will face off for the new district that most closely resembles their two prior districts. Sometimes one of the members will just decide to retire.
State governments re-draw the lines. Sometimes they try to preserve existing districts and existing constituents for existing congresspeople, and sometimes they intentionally obliterate them (based on where the congressperson's house is). Precisely how they do so varies by state.
Yes, this would impact the next election cycle, occurring in 2022, and the effects would first be seen in the congress sworn in in January of 2023.
The states with changes in seats are responsible for the redistricting. What this means in practice is that in a state losing one seat, one district will disappear and the map gets redrawn. Then you'll typically have a primary or a general election where both candidates are incumbents. If both incumbents are in the same party, they'll face off in the primary for that party, if they're in different parties they'll face off in the general election. Alternatively, one incumbent may choose to retire.
The states with changes in seats are responsible for the redistricting. What this means in practice is that in a state losing one seat, one district will disappear and the map gets redrawn. Then you'll typically have a primary or a general election where both candidates are incumbents. If both incumbents are in the same party, they'll face off in the primary for that party, if they're in different parties they'll face off in the general election. Alternatively, one incumbent may choose to retire.
> The states with changes in seats are responsible for the redistricting.
So are the states without changes; no net changes in seats doesn’t mean no internal population movement that would render existing districts no longer sufficiently equal to satisfy equal representation (the exception being states that have no change in seats and exactly one seat.)
So are the states without changes; no net changes in seats doesn’t mean no internal population movement that would render existing districts no longer sufficiently equal to satisfy equal representation (the exception being states that have no change in seats and exactly one seat.)
The changes will come into play as of 2023's Congress.
House seat changes by state:
(+2) TX
(+1) CO, FL, MT, NC, OR
(-1) CA, IL, MI, NY, OH, PA, WV
(0) everyone elseDon't forget - the 2020 census was interfered with for expressly political gains.
That seems relevant to any discussion if it's outcomes. While states themselves are not nearly as red/blue at the district level as they might be in the aggregate, it is absolutely worth noting that a net 6 additional congressional seats are going from "Blue" states to "Red" states.
The actual impact of the census may be even bigger than this - for all we knew the REVERSE trend should have occurred as the country's demographics shift.
* https://publicintegrity.org/politics/system-failure/trump-ob...
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/trump-...
* https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/08/07/trumps-...
That seems relevant to any discussion if it's outcomes. While states themselves are not nearly as red/blue at the district level as they might be in the aggregate, it is absolutely worth noting that a net 6 additional congressional seats are going from "Blue" states to "Red" states.
The actual impact of the census may be even bigger than this - for all we knew the REVERSE trend should have occurred as the country's demographics shift.
* https://publicintegrity.org/politics/system-failure/trump-ob...
* https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/oct/15/trump-...
* https://www.brookings.edu/blog/the-avenue/2020/08/07/trumps-...
Red states gaining seats is in no way incompatible with demographic changes. Red states become less red via population growth could fully explain this effect, and seems like a completely plausible explanation.
Also 6 electoral college votes.
Wait is that true? Is a democratic president ever going to be elected again?
Of the 6 states that gained an electoral vote [0]:
- Biden's 6-point loss in Texas [1] was the slimmest margin since 1996 (and 92 and 96 featured Ross Perot, a strong third-party conservative); the margins for 2012 and 2016 were 16% and 9%, respectively.
- North Carolina went for Trump by just 1.5%, and has had similar slim margins since Obama's 0.3% victory in 2008 [2]
- Colorado and Oregon both went blue by ~15% margins
- Montana has been reliably red.
- Florida has become more and more reliably red, but not as much as Ohio (which lost a vote) has.
More guaranteed-blue states (CA, NY, IL) lost votes than guaranteed-red (WV), but this isn't a seismic, immutable shift by any means.
[0] https://www.wbur.org/npr/983082132/census-to-release-1st-res...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
- Biden's 6-point loss in Texas [1] was the slimmest margin since 1996 (and 92 and 96 featured Ross Perot, a strong third-party conservative); the margins for 2012 and 2016 were 16% and 9%, respectively.
- North Carolina went for Trump by just 1.5%, and has had similar slim margins since Obama's 0.3% victory in 2008 [2]
- Colorado and Oregon both went blue by ~15% margins
- Montana has been reliably red.
- Florida has become more and more reliably red, but not as much as Ohio (which lost a vote) has.
More guaranteed-blue states (CA, NY, IL) lost votes than guaranteed-red (WV), but this isn't a seismic, immutable shift by any means.
[0] https://www.wbur.org/npr/983082132/census-to-release-1st-res...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidentia...
Is it time to expand the House? It feels like as the population grows we shouldn’t dilute and move around representation.
Personally, I say yes. The US is a huge outlier among OECD nations [1] and this definitely shows in the connection and level of interaction people feel to their representatives, at least based on my experience living in both the US and a country with a far lower ratio.
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/17417452/congress-representatio...
[1] https://www.vox.com/2018/6/4/17417452/congress-representatio...
It's not such an easy decision. Sure if you have more reps, each constituent arguably has more access. The flip side is that they have more access to a less powerful rep. If you had 10,000 people in congress, sure it'd be a lot easier to get in touch with one of them, but 1 person in a group of 10,000 doesn't have much influence, so how much is that interaction really worth?
Even at 435, unless your rep is a senior member with some important committee assignments and they happen to be in the majority party, getting the ear of your rep isn't worth all that much.
Even at 435, unless your rep is a senior member with some important committee assignments and they happen to be in the majority party, getting the ear of your rep isn't worth all that much.
The power of reps extends far beyond just passing legislation, and even then, essentially all of them are on some committees. Lots of them (maybe even most/all?) make themselves accessible to constituents to help work through government bureaucracy, and a representative shining a light on a constituent's issue can help things get addressed. I'm not sure jumping straight to 10,000 reps would necessarily be the best idea, but I think having been static for the past 100 years isn't ideal either.
<opinion>
The real solution being to devolve more power to state legislatures with on-the-ground familiarity with local issues, since it's actually quite easy to get the ear of your _state_ representative.
</opinion>
The real solution being to devolve more power to state legislatures with on-the-ground familiarity with local issues, since it's actually quite easy to get the ear of your _state_ representative.
</opinion>
I think this exactly right. However, in the U.S. we have been moving in precisely the opposite direction for decades, centralizing power more and more at the federal level. This is, in part anyway, what has turned federal elections into such a bloodsport. If your side loses, people who don't share your values or understand anything about where you live suddenly have a big say in a lot of things that affect you directly. This is true regardless of your particular political affiliation.
Getting the ear of your rep could lead to your rep getting the ear of other reps, or the scruff of some federal agency.
> so how much is that interaction really worth?
Wait, you mean more reps results in less value in buying them? Sign me up for that plan!
Bottom line: More, and less powerful, reps means more diverse representation, and less power to abuse. Win-win.
Wait, you mean more reps results in less value in buying them? Sign me up for that plan!
Bottom line: More, and less powerful, reps means more diverse representation, and less power to abuse. Win-win.
Power is bad.
If you can convince 27 more states to ratify the congressional apportionment amendment you can.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
To be clear, one does not need an amendment to increase the size of the House.
Changing the size of the House can be done through normal legislation after a Census.
Changing the size of the House can be done through normal legislation after a Census.
Yeah, but it's extremely unlikely to happen that way
In particular, such legislation would have to pass the House. Each representative in the House can decide: "Do I want to be one of 435 representatives, and represent a significant number of people, or do I want to be one of some larger number of representatives, and have correspondingly less power, both in DC and at home?" Given that calculus, I'd be surprised if the House passed any such thing.
One issue with increasing the number of representatives is that you make each individual member less powerful, and consequently centralize power in the parties (and the executive).
I don't think I agree with this. Suppose there were 1 million representatives, each with ~330 constituents. This is untenable, sure, but imagine this were the case. Would a body like that even be capable of having votes on party lines? Would a body like that even be capable of operating as a two party system?
Then, the academic cases, wouldn't a body like that make it more likely to have other parties have a larger role in national politics?
I'd say since the house is supposed to be a democratic institution, the only one in the federal government, making individual members less powerful is a good thing. If the body is supposed to represent the population directly, the less powerful each individual is in the body the less oligarchic that body will be.
Then, the academic cases, wouldn't a body like that make it more likely to have other parties have a larger role in national politics?
I'd say since the house is supposed to be a democratic institution, the only one in the federal government, making individual members less powerful is a good thing. If the body is supposed to represent the population directly, the less powerful each individual is in the body the less oligarchic that body will be.
Unlike the senate where all the power rests in Joe Manchins hands
In a senate that's split 50-50, Joe Manchin has exactly as much power as every other Senator. Right now he's just the only one willing to use it.
The Senate is so different from the house that I don't think it is worth it to make a comparison. Much better to compare to other legislatures for large population nation states, like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, Australia, and Nigeria.
Anti-democratic principles and minority rule are baked into the constitution. Plus, with one party actively benefiting from it, it's not going to happen any time soon. But yes, expanding the house would be the right thing to do.
Wouldn't adding incremental representatives to the house "dilute" representation regardless? I would argue that this isn't a dilution of anyone's representation, it's a re-weighting of representatives to a more representative distribution based on underlying demographic movement over the last 10 years.
The number of representatives makes it hard to fairly apportion the seats. Montana went from 1 representative for 1M people to 2 for 1M, meaning each should represent about 500k people. Meanwhile in my district in NJ over 700k people are represented by one person. It was unfair before, when Montanans had too few representatives, and it is just as unfair now, when they have too many (compared to NJ). More representatives would improve the granularity and make the system (somewhat) fairer.
If improving granularity is the goal, wouldn’t it make even more sense to have fractional votes? After all, there’s no real reason why each representative’s vote should count equally...
It's sort of nice to be able to reason about votes in a straightforward way, and you'd have even worse social dynamics if some members are literally more powerful inside the chamber than others.
A better plan would be to change to a proportional system in the House, where seats are allocated to parties according to national vote totals. State lines are arbitrarily drawn and do not actually represent the actual divisions among Americans. The fact that a representative from a densely populated urban district represents more people than a representative from a sparsely populated rural state is inherently undemocratic (this is even worse in the Senate). We do not need more representatives, we need better representation.
This is a terrible idea and let me tell you why.
First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals" you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people do have more in common with neighbors than simple party members from the other side of the country. A republican and a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your proposal eliminates representation of community interests and elevates party interest above all else. It also severely damages the check the house can have on the president since whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house.
A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has already been passed by congress and is awaiting state ratification. It would ensure that each representative represents the same number of people but it would still preserve community interest representation and probably strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the house.
First, it puts the balance in the house in the hands of the campaign managers for president (or whichever "vote totals" you would prefer to go by) second, it entrenches the 2 party system as a de jure institution. Third, while districts are drawn very much arbitrarily (and in many cases against the interests of the people in them a la gerrymandering) people do have more in common with neighbors than simple party members from the other side of the country. A republican and a democrat in the 6th district have more in common than two republicans, one from Maine and one from Louisiana. Your proposal eliminates representation of community interests and elevates party interest above all else. It also severely damages the check the house can have on the president since whichever party wins the presidency also wins the house.
A better solution is this solution https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am... thankfully it has already been passed by congress and is awaiting state ratification. It would ensure that each representative represents the same number of people but it would still preserve community interest representation and probably strengthen it and make party interest an afterthought in the house.
This would violate one of the central promises of the union which was that the large populous areas would not be able to dictate to the smaller regions and would instead be forced to compromise with them. We seem poised to start expanding the union again in the coming decades. Imagine how much more difficult it would be to get smaller Mexican states or central American countries to agree to join the union if they believed they would have no say in running their local after doing so.
I understand where you are coming from as the US is so homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union are more different than the average American than similar so these same protections will be critical to the effort.
I understand where you are coming from as the US is so homogenous now thanks to 250 years of interstate population movement that the delineations seem arbitrary and unfair, but they were very distinct separate regions once upon a time and looking forward the regions we hope to bring into our union are more different than the average American than similar so these same protections will be critical to the effort.
That is the unconvincing argument for the (extremely) undemocratic Senate. The House is supposed to reflect the will of the people which is why we apportion representatives according to the states' populations; the only compromise was that no state would receive less than one representative.
Really though, appealing the logic used 250 years ago is not very convincing. We have different concerns today than we did in in the 18th century. We are not trying to convince a ragtag group of states to form a union, the union has formed and is unlikely to disintegrate. Today we have a problem of bad representation in Congress, and it has been getting worse and worse with each passing year. It is not just about state borders, it is also a problem of how districts are drawn within states, and a proportional system would address that as well (why should we ever talk about gerrymandering? it is an artificial problem that can easily be solved). Year after year a majority of Americans have watched as people the party they voted against somehow took power, kept power, and received just enough power to prevent widely supported initiatives from going anywhere. The trend has been getting worse and worse as Republicans from sparsely populated states have become more and more aggressive at pressing their structural advantage. That needs to be addressed before people start questioning the value of democracy itself.
Really though, appealing the logic used 250 years ago is not very convincing. We have different concerns today than we did in in the 18th century. We are not trying to convince a ragtag group of states to form a union, the union has formed and is unlikely to disintegrate. Today we have a problem of bad representation in Congress, and it has been getting worse and worse with each passing year. It is not just about state borders, it is also a problem of how districts are drawn within states, and a proportional system would address that as well (why should we ever talk about gerrymandering? it is an artificial problem that can easily be solved). Year after year a majority of Americans have watched as people the party they voted against somehow took power, kept power, and received just enough power to prevent widely supported initiatives from going anywhere. The trend has been getting worse and worse as Republicans from sparsely populated states have become more and more aggressive at pressing their structural advantage. That needs to be addressed before people start questioning the value of democracy itself.
Yes, and it's time to solve that problem once and for all with this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congressional_Apportionment_Am...
Interestingly this amendment was passed by congress with the bill of rights with no expiration and is still waiting before the States for ratification. So it does not require Congress to act, only many of the states. Another amendment passed with the bill of rights was ratified in 1992.
It would guarantee that all congressional seats on congress represent an equal number of people, thus making the house of representatives a truly democratic institution. It would make house representation a more local enterprise and reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering. The downsides are of course that there would be thousands of representatives and the capitol would then need to be rebuilt or some other mechanism created for house and joint sessions.
Interestingly this amendment was passed by congress with the bill of rights with no expiration and is still waiting before the States for ratification. So it does not require Congress to act, only many of the states. Another amendment passed with the bill of rights was ratified in 1992.
It would guarantee that all congressional seats on congress represent an equal number of people, thus making the house of representatives a truly democratic institution. It would make house representation a more local enterprise and reduce the effectiveness of gerrymandering. The downsides are of course that there would be thousands of representatives and the capitol would then need to be rebuilt or some other mechanism created for house and joint sessions.
Your link says there would be >6000 reps. That's nothing. Just build a very small stadium, with "Yes" and "No" buttons wired to every seat.
> Puerto Rico's resident population was 3,285,874, down 11.8% from 3,725,789 in the 2010 Census.
Is there any explanation for this?
Is there any explanation for this?
Hurricane drove a lot of people away.
https://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/research/data-center/resear...
https://centropr.hunter.cuny.edu/research/data-center/resear...
Massively devastating natural events + crappy economy + local governmental corruption + freedom of movement into the US = a lot of people leaving.
Honestly, the fact that even more people don't flee that island for mainland US is a testament to the importance people place on their "homeland".
Honestly, the fact that even more people don't flee that island for mainland US is a testament to the importance people place on their "homeland".
Hurricane Maria in 2017 must be partially responsible?
Property damage (estimated at $90B) and loss of economic opportunity surely forced many people to move to the mainland.
Property damage (estimated at $90B) and loss of economic opportunity surely forced many people to move to the mainland.
Everyone is pointing to Hurricane Maria, which is a big factor, but even before that there was a major financial crisis creating substantial misery.
Hurricane Maria was pretty devastating and the lack of Federal aid exacerbated it. I imagine people left after that.
Another one of Trump's short sighted policy backfires. In his effort to paint Puerto Rico as a failed and corrupt liberal state, he denied them aid, causing half a million American citizens to move from a place where they couldn't vote in federal elections to places where they could.
Spare a thought for the census bureau folks, who in an incredibly stressful year and in an incredibly polarized political climate, had to nonetheless get the job done and try to release the data on time and keep their cool and remain objective, all the while knowing that their best case scenario is nobody really thinks about how they did it. Not an easy job.
I'm interested to see how Montana will be drawn. I didn't think I'd ever see that happen.
Perfect world, it probably has a jagged split north to south drawing through Great Falls down to Billings/Hardin.
With this year's state legislature and Governor Body-slam; they'll try some stupid ass bs drawing down the rockies along the I15 corridor and splitting the two major dem hubs in the state (Bozeman and Missoula) rendering it set up perfectly for 2 republican representatives from here to eternity.
With this year's state legislature and Governor Body-slam; they'll try some stupid ass bs drawing down the rockies along the I15 corridor and splitting the two major dem hubs in the state (Bozeman and Missoula) rendering it set up perfectly for 2 republican representatives from here to eternity.
In all the press surrounding the shortened door-to-door period, as well as the legal kerfuffle about asking about citizenship, it was repeatedly stressed that lower counts could also impact federal funding for a range of programs.
I know the census is supposed to release other stats later this year, but are these state-level resident counts enough to make educated guesses about impacts to stuff beyond the house?
I know the census is supposed to release other stats later this year, but are these state-level resident counts enough to make educated guesses about impacts to stuff beyond the house?
The most important bit:
> Texas will gain two seats in the House of Representatives, five states will gain one seat each (Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon), seven states will lose one seat each (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), and the remaining states’ number of seats will not change based on the 2020 Census.
> Texas will gain two seats in the House of Representatives, five states will gain one seat each (Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon), seven states will lose one seat each (California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia), and the remaining states’ number of seats will not change based on the 2020 Census.
Now the Q is how will the districts be drawn to make those two new TX districts reliably red, eh?
Probably in much the same way that the seats in the other states will be re-drawn to make them as Blue as possible, so it will not even out, but at least Texas will remain Texas.
That said, given what the Democrats are doing, seats may be entirely inconsequential going forward. This may all be a huge waste of time.
That said, given what the Democrats are doing, seats may be entirely inconsequential going forward. This may all be a huge waste of time.
Democrats are committed to the idea that politicians shouldn't choose their voters. They have fought in court over it and the SCOTUS decided gerrymandering is fine, even many egregious examples.
The GOP has always been on board with this. Why I'll never understand. The only excuse you ever get is "Dems do it too!"
As if Democrats should just lay down arms and not participate in the practice and let the GOP gerrymander every state to oblivion out of principle or something.
The GOP has always been on board with this. Why I'll never understand. The only excuse you ever get is "Dems do it too!"
As if Democrats should just lay down arms and not participate in the practice and let the GOP gerrymander every state to oblivion out of principle or something.
Do you mean in terms of granting DC and Puerto Rico statehood, or reallocating representatives based on population?
[deleted]
Rhode Island's 2nd congressional district survives for another decade.
The slowing of immigration is starting to make our falling birthrates more noticeable. We'll need to see a surge in immigration in the coming years to avoid the aging problem facing most other wealthy countries.
Biden's proposed $2 trillion family plan might help if it could ever get passed, but it might be too little too late. Other countries have had far more extreme incentives to have kids for decades and still ended up much farther down the wrong side of the aging curve than we are.
EDIT: I appreciate the downvotes. But I wonder which you prefer: higher taxes for working people, reduced benefits for the elderly, or more immigrants coming to our nation of immigrants? We need to pick one.
Biden's proposed $2 trillion family plan might help if it could ever get passed, but it might be too little too late. Other countries have had far more extreme incentives to have kids for decades and still ended up much farther down the wrong side of the aging curve than we are.
EDIT: I appreciate the downvotes. But I wonder which you prefer: higher taxes for working people, reduced benefits for the elderly, or more immigrants coming to our nation of immigrants? We need to pick one.
Birthrates are depressed because prime child-rearing ages, (22-35?) are increasingly unable to afford adequate housing and health insurance. Solve those, families will feel more secure and be able to live close to relatives to help out with children, and the issue is much more tractable.
That perspective is not compatible with what we know about birthrates in other developed nations. More highly educated societies exhibit lower birthrates, more or less universally. Even within the US, people with more education have children later and fewer children, even though they also have higher incomes and better insurance, etc.
In many European countries, families are given considerable support and incentives far beyond what American families receive, yet birthrates still continue to drop.
In many European countries, families are given considerable support and incentives far beyond what American families receive, yet birthrates still continue to drop.
Affordable housing isn't a US centric problem, I think that it is fair to say that it is still a big concern for many families across the world. If you look at what % people are paying for housing vs. other stuff, I imagine a pretty clear trend over the last 50-80 years would start to show.
And if you increase immigration, you increase labour supply, and demand for housing - reducing wages and increasing cost of living, which negatively impacts fertility.
The fundamental problem in the USA is the broken healthcare and pension system, which allocates too many resources to baby boomers and unfairly burdens younger workers.
The fundamental problem in the USA is the broken healthcare and pension system, which allocates too many resources to baby boomers and unfairly burdens younger workers.
The fertility issue is not a unique American problem. It has been happening for decades in nearly every developed country, and it is consistently observed when populations become more highly educated. The reason it has hit most developed nations harder than the US is because the US historically has much higher immigration rates than other nations, and immigrants tend to skew younger.
[deleted]
It seems absolutely wild to me that we are using pre pandemic population counts to apportion seats.
The pandemic was and is horrible, but it didn't take enough lives above the expected death rate to really have an appreciable impact on census data. (I am not a COVID denialist, we had more deaths than expected rates, it is worse than the flu etc. etc.)
Unless you are talking about out-migration from big cities to small cities, but then again I think it could be just as illogical to say "lets base it off of immediate post-pandemic numbers" as I would best a good many people will move _back_ to the big cities.
That is the risk of a point-in-time count. So many external factors. But generally they all cancel one another out, and each point-in-time count has similar but unique circumstances that in the aggregate could have an impact. Just the way these counts are.
Unless you are talking about out-migration from big cities to small cities, but then again I think it could be just as illogical to say "lets base it off of immediate post-pandemic numbers" as I would best a good many people will move _back_ to the big cities.
That is the risk of a point-in-time count. So many external factors. But generally they all cancel one another out, and each point-in-time count has similar but unique circumstances that in the aggregate could have an impact. Just the way these counts are.
There's more to it, I had a census worker knocking on my door mid pandemic and nobody answered as they went door to door.
The pandemic itself impacted the ability to DO the survey, while also happening when certain areas experienced great movements of their populations.
The pandemic itself impacted the ability to DO the survey, while also happening when certain areas experienced great movements of their populations.
I am explicitly concerned about the point in time nature. I am glad you pointed out all of the migration anomalies, as well as the future possibility for more.
Edit: also I would not balk at 500k deaths. There will be more to come as well. That is a significant portion of the voting age and likely voter populations.
Edit: also I would not balk at 500k deaths. There will be more to come as well. That is a significant portion of the voting age and likely voter populations.
Especially since we are talking 10-year increments here, for the pandemic to have a real impact on census stuff, it would have to have killed many people _who were not otherwise going to die over the next decade_. Most likely, we front-loaded a lot of these expected deaths to the early part of the decade. That is to say, at some point in the next 10 years the census will be an accurate representation of living voting-age people in the USA.
I didn't balk at 500k deaths. In fact, I tried to make sure that nobody would accuse me of downplaying the deaths/impact of the pandemic.
I didn't balk at 500k deaths. In fact, I tried to make sure that nobody would accuse me of downplaying the deaths/impact of the pandemic.
For the next 10 years
At least it is better than the UK. IIRC they completely stopped updating their seats.