|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures."
-- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tuesday, December 21, 2010 :::
It's reapportionment day. The new data (csv) have been released by the census; my apportionment site explains some of the mechanics — not necessarily lucidly, but not as evasively as most such sources seem to be — and I have more details on the new apportionment there.
States not listed are unchanged from ten years ago.
| state | 2010 | 2000 | change | | Arizona | 9 | 8 | +1 | | Florida | 27 | 25 | +2 | | Georgia | 14 | 13 | +1 | | Illinois | 18 | 19 | -1 | | Iowa | 4 | 5 | -1 | | Louisiana | 6 | 7 | -1 | | Massachusetts | 9 | 10 | -1 | | Michigan | 14 | 15 | -1 | | Missouri | 8 | 9 | -1 | | Nevada | 4 | 3 | +1 | | New Jersey | 12 | 13 | -1 | | New York | 27 | 29 | -2 | | Ohio | 16 | 18 | -2 | | Pennsylvania | 18 | 19 | -1 | | South Carolina | 7 | 6 | +1 | | Texas | 36 | 32 | +4 | | Utah | 4 | 3 | +1 | | Washington | 10 | 9 | +1 |
As it happens, Washington, Minnesota (which barely held onto the same number of seats as in 2000) and Texas were very nearly tied for the 433rd–435th seats; there was more space between them and 436, which would have gone to North Carolina, which got the 435th seat ten years ago. No state would have been allocated another seat with less than .2% more people than it had; this is a much wider margin than last time.
If you're interested, you might check out the official census blog.
Labels: apportionment
::: posted by dWj at 11:50 AM
|
|
|
|
