Jump to content

State Population Rankings According to the 2010 U.S. Census


Max

Recommended Posts

  • Members

This past week the results of the 2010 U.S. Census were publicly released. Perhaps the biggest impact the Census has on Americans (and their political system) is the determination of how many seats each state will be alloted in the 435 member House of Representatives. States will fast population growth rates (since 2000) will gain House seats, while those will slow population growth rates will lose seats.

In case you didn't know, the number of electoral votes each state casts in a presidential election is equal to the number of representatives it sends to the House plus its number of Senators. (Because each state has two Senators regardless of its population, any state's electoral vote total equals the number of Congressmen it has plus the number two.) Therefore, states that gain (or lose) a given number of representatives in the House will gain (or lose) that same number of electoral votes.

Below is a list of all fifty states, ranked from most populated to least populated (according to the new 2010 U.S. Census data). For each state, I've also listed the number of representatives it will send to the House (beginning in 2012) along with its number of electoral votes (that it will also have beginning in 2012). Finally, I have listed--in parentheses--the number of House seats/electoral votes a state has gained or lost (compared to what that state had following the 2000 Census), in the event that there is a change (in House seats/electoral votes) from the previous decade.

Here is the list:

53 Representatives/55 Electoral Votes:

#1: California (no change in House seats/electoral votes from last decade)

36 Representatives/38 Electoral Votes:

#2: Texas (gain of four)

27 Representatives/29 Electoral Votes (each):

#3: New York (loss of two)

#4: Florida (gain of two)

18 Representatives/20 Electoral Votes (each):

#5: Illinois (loss of one)

#6: Pennsylvania (loss of one)

16 Representatives/18 Electoral Votes:

#7: Ohio (loss of two)

14 Representatives/16 Electoral Votes (each):

#8: Michigan (loss of one)

#9: Georgia (gain of one)

13 Representatives/15 Electoral Votes:

#10: North Carolina (no change)

12 Representatives/14 Electoral Votes:

#11: New Jersey (loss of one)

11 Representatives/13 Electoral Votes:

#12: Virginia (no change)

10 Representatives/12 Electoral Votes:

#13: Washington (gain of one)

9 Representatives/11 Electoral Votes (each):

#14: Massachusetts (loss of one)

#15: Indiana (no change)

#16: Arizona (gain of one)

#17: Tennessee (no change)

8 Representatives/10 Electoral Votes (each):

#18: Missouri (loss of one)

#19: Maryland (no change)

#20: Wisconsin (no change)

#21: Minnesota (no change)

7 Representatives/9 Electoral Votes (each):

#22: Colorado (no change)

#23: Alabama (no change)

#24: South Carolina (gain of one)

6 Representatives/8 Electoral Votes (each):

#25: Louisiana (loss of one)

#26: Kentucky (no change)

5 Representatives/7 Electoral Votes (each):

#27: Oregon (no change)

#28: Oklahoma (no change)

#29: Connecticut (no change)

4 Representatives/6 Electoral Votes (each):

#30: Iowa (loss of one)

#31: Mississippi (no change)

#32: Arkansas (no change)

#33: Kansas (no change)

#34: Utah (gain of one)

#35: Nevada (gain of one)

3 Representatives/5 Electoral Votes (each):

#36: New Mexico (no change)

#37: West Virginia (no change)

#38: Nebraska (no change)

2 Representatives/4 Electoral Votes (each):

#39: Idaho (no change)

#40: Hawaii (no change)

#41: Maine (no change)

#42: New Hampshire (no change)

#43: Rhode Island (no change)

1 Representative/3 Electoral Votes (each):

#44: Montana (no change)

#45: Delaware (no change)

#46: South Dakota (no change)

#47: Alaska (no change)

#48: North Dakota (no change)

#49: Vermont (no change)

#50: Wyoming (no change)

Before I conclude this post, I just wanted to make some random comments below:

*The most surprising state (in terms of who gained or lost House seats) is definately Washington, since the regions of the country that usually experience a high rate of population growth are the Southeast and Southwest (as opposed to the Pacific Northwest). (Though Louisiana is in the fast growing Southeast, I can't say it is a surprise that it lost a House seat, given the devastating aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.)

*Were the District of Columbia a state, it would rank in-between Vermont and Wyoming. As you might expect, DC has the bare minimum of 3 electoral votes in presidential elections.

*I believe that the 2010 Census marks the first time that California has failed to gain any House seats (from the prior decade). In fact, there was speculation at one time that California would actually lose a seat (though luckily for them that did not happen).

*Though you won't know this by looking at the above list, the only state to actually lose population from 2000 to 2010 was Michigan. That's why I'm surprised Michigan only lost one House seat while New York and Ohio (which both still gained populaton, albeit at a very slow rate) each lost two.

*Slightly over half of all Americans live in the nation's nine most populated states. Similarly, if a presidential candidate won all of the eleven largest states but lost the remaining thirty-nine (along with losing DC), he would still be elected president. (Though reastically speaking, of course, such a scenario would never happen, given that Texas and New York would only support the same candidate in a landslide election.)

*In the 2008 presidential election, Obama won 365 electoral votes to McCain's 173 (with 270 electoral votes needed to win); if each state had these new "numbers" (from the 2010 Census) back then, the outcome would have been 359 electoral votes for Obama to 179 for McCain. While a shift of six electoral votes has no material impact in an election (like that of 2008) where the margin of victory is substantial, it could make a big difference in a very close race: Back in 2004, for instance, Bush collected 286 electoral votes compared to Kerry's 251; with the 2010 data, it would have been 292 electoral votes for Bush to 245 for Kerry. This small electoral shift would have allowed Bush to defeat Kerry even without winning Ohio. (And, if you remember, Bush only won the 2004 election because he won Ohio by about 110,000 votes.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1
  • Created
  • Last Reply
  • Members

What I'm curious about and haven't found yet is the information on demographics. I suppose those hard numbers should be released sooner or later. I have read that the white population of the U.S. is currently at 74%, and if you exclude Hispanic Whites, then it becomes 65%. I'm also curious about how my own demographic--NA/AI&AN changed, probably not to much I don't think. If anything I think there would be more significant growth in mixed races.

I assume that additional Arizona seat will be in the Phoenix area. I really don't understand the appeal of Phoenix besides warm weather in January unlike Tucson, Albuquerque, Denver, and even Las Vegas it's a city with no culture to it, just one hot trashy mess in the desert.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



  • Recent Posts

    • I skimmed some of the 1982 synopses; Steve was planning on an opening an office in Finland, and I think Jim went there as part of the preparation. That probably was a big issue; AW had already gone to San Diego that year, with Rachel/Steve/Mitch. And to upstate NY with Pete and Diana. I wonder if upstate was as expensive lol  AW in 1982 has always fascinated me, because of how messy it was 
    • That makes sense. What a messy time for the show. And any changes they made were mostly for the worse.
    • The transition from Neal to Adam was very abrupt, and to be honest my theory is that the character of Neal was designed so that we think he is super shady but then it turns out that he was on the side of good all along so Neal could have seamlessly become a hero of the BCPD with no need for Adam. I don't know whether Robert Lupone was hired on a short contract or if he was fired from a longer-term contract because they decided they wanted someone who was more of a leading man type, but I can imagine a scenario where Charles Grant did both the undercover Egyptian treasure/flirt with Victoria and the straighter-arrow day to day police investigation. But in my imagined scenario the MJ prostitution plotline probably doesn't exist and instead he probably continues a relationship with Victoria. The story seems very odd to me. I assume that David Canary would have been included only because a plotline where Steve is going to Finland in which only Rachel is seen in actual Finland seems unlikely. The synopses explicitly mention that Alice can't go with Steve but would whoever was playing Alice at that time have had the kind of clout to get the remote cancelled? It also strikes me as unlikely that production would have approved the expensive location shoot and *then* cancelled it only because of jealousy. It seems more likely that they rejected it because of the expense but then the jealousy part got added to the gossip speculatively, possibly because while it was being worked out they justified not including more castmembers because of the expense. 
    • My comment has nothing to do with cast resentment, but does relate to the Finland location shoot: It may be a coincidence, but Jim Matthews died in Finland in 1982.  Hugh Marlowe's final episode was in April 1982, but the character probably didn't die untll May or June. (I'm unable to find the character's date of death, only the date of Marlowe's final episode). SInce Jim and Rachel had very little interaction after around 1975, it is unlikely Jim's death in Finland had any connection to Rachel's potential visit, but the choice to have Jim die in that location at that time is a head-scratcher.  I'm sure the writers sent Jim on an extended trip (and off-screen) because of Marlowe's illness.  But Finland seems like a strange choice considering the (then) recently cancelled location shoot.  
    • I totally understand your sloths concern about it and I agree with you. Let’s hope the show plays it’s cards right.    Further comments about the last few episodes: - I liked that one of the attendees was filming the scene. That’s realistic. I wonder if the writers will follow up with that.  - Martin and Smitty trying to drag Leslie out was very heteronormative, so perfectly in line with them two as characters lol.    As for the future: it’s obvious the Duprees will come to accept Eva one way or another, but the rivalry with Kay should be here for the long term   On the topic of acting: the only bad actors I’m seeing are Ted and Derek. Tomas hasn’t proven to be either good or bad, so far, but he’s certainly mediocre and uncharismatic. He sucks the energy out of the scenes and I don’t see any couple of women ever vying for him. 
    • I’m trying to think which actors VW were working with at the time, and none of them had been there for a while. Even like Mac and Ada didn’t have that big of a part in Rachel’s storyline.  And Jamie was involved with all that movie stuff.
    • Brooke did ads before ATWT too. That probably helped get her the job. After ATWT she seemed to branch more into hosting, along with ads.  I think I saw Kelley in an ad or two, but you're right she wasn't on as much. 
    •   Thanks for sharing these. I wonder if Charles might have been in the running for Adam. I know Preacher was a bit of a bad boy at times on EON, but Neal seemed to be a step down, and Robert Lupone had played a similar part on AMC. Given the huge cast turnover at this point I wonder who thought they had been there long enough to go.  Laura Malone/Chris Rich would get a remote within the next year. 
    • Interesting.  It seems to allude to that statement that Warren Burton made around that time about some AW actors getting special treatment.  I wonder who was resentful about not getting to go. 
    • Good morning, boys!  I figured that it was time that our Gio was introduced into the hotness thread

      Please register in order to view this content

      @ranger1rg I even included a close up of his face for ya!
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy