- What the maps illustrate:
- It is clear that any actual apportionment of the U.S. House will be conducted, as it always has been, on the basis of total population, including non-citizens.
- Nevertheless the maps included here show the 'gainers' and 'losers' as if an apportionment were to be implemented using the CPOP and CVAP.
They are thus consistent with the other apportionment maps which reflect the gainers and losers on the basis of population or alternative apportionment bases.
- As such these maps illustrate the degree to which political power via seats in the U.S. House and electoral votes are affected by the presence of non-citizens in states.
- TPOP--Total Population; TVAP--Total Voting Age; CPOP--Citizen Population; CVAP--Citizen Voting Age; ACS--American Community Survey; PEP--Population Estimates Program.
- Apportionment-2017 Estimates and 2020 Projection for CPOP--Citizen Population
- Apportionment-2017 Estimates and 2020 Projection for CVAP--Citizen Voting Age
- Notes on the projections.
- Be sure to see the notes in the news page for more comments on this topic.
- Note that the projections illustrated here are simply based upon a projection of the ACS estimate of the CPOP or CVAP from the base ACS data.
- In this case the base is the three most recent datasets of the 2014, 2015, and 2016 ACS 1-year datasets released in September of 2015, 2016, and 2017.
A simple average of the two net rates is used to project out to the 2020 number.
- This is compared to similar projections of the TPOP and TVAP from the PEP, for which annual releases are made of the total population and voting age population.
- The non-citzen component is the difference between the projection for the TPOP/TVAP and the CPOP/CVAP. As such the proportion of the non-citizen
population remains relatively stable as a portion of the overall population or voting age. Of course, if the non-citizen component increases, or decreases,
substantially over the recent trends that would affect these projections.
- Specific comments:
- California would be the biggest loser as under the apportionment scenarios shown above it would be -5 or -4, for CPOP and CVAP respectively, seats following 2020 if these were used as the apportionment bases.
- New York would be the next biggest loser at either -1 or -2 under the scenarios above.
- Texas would be a loser under CVAP but not so much under CPOP: the population growth in TX is much stronger than CA (which is about the same as the nation) and NY (which is much slower than the nation's rate).
- Florida would not be a loser but a gainer largely because it also has a faster than the nation growth rate.
- Other potential losers would be NJ, PA, and IL, each of which have slow growth rates.
- The gainers, each of which would only gain 1 seat each include several states under the scenarios above:
PA, OH, MO, VA, NC, FL, and LA and MT, CO, AZ, and OR.
- While gainers would outnumber losers in each scenario, about 13-15 states and from 6 to 9 seats could shift.
- Caveats:
- Note that these are projections simply based upon the assumption that the most recent trends continue.
Trends during the most recent years have been different from those seen over the first few years of the decade.
The most recent year's ACS information is from 2016 and any impact from the election of President Trump has not been reflected in these numbers.
- Moreover, there appears to have been a large difference in the PEP and ACS numbers from year to year with respect to both POP and VAP.
E.g., the net population between 2016 and 2015 was much lower than previous years but the PEP estimates for 2017 reflected a net that was more in line with previous years.
This is bound to have some minimizing effect on these projections.
|
POLIDATA Home
| Products
| Services
| Library
| Links
|| CENSUS BUREAU Home