Wow. With Missouri losing a seat and us gaining, we have cemented our position as the third-most-powerful state west of the Mississippi. Only California and Texas, the two biggest states in the Union.

Arizona will presumably catch us by the next census, though it's possible that the 2010 one caught them at their absolute peak just as hundreds of thousands of people were packing up to leave. Between the mortgage collapse, which hit AZ worse than anywhere, and the Mexican-Americans fleeing the police state there, they probably have fewer people today than they did a year ago.

Nevada also probably doesn't really deserve their new seat. It's interesting to see that blue cluster in the southwest desert, precisely where large increases in human settlement are least sustainable. When the water dries up in the next decade, they may all leave again. And come here.

We may gain 1, but TX gains 4 and FL gains 2 (plus all those other Red States that gain 1), while NY loses 2 and MA loses 1.

We're fucked.

The real issue here, for me, is that re-apportionment is not necessary and, in fact, is not in the Constitution. When the overall population of the nation grows, we ought to just ADD seats. The formula I would use: population of the smallest state should determine the size of a Congressional district, and if a state grows larger by multiples of that number of people, it gets more Congressmen on its own terms. A state that loses population might also lose a seat, but not in this zero-sum swapping game to arbitrarily keep the number of Representatives at 435.

This will haunt progressives come 2012, as Red States are gaining Electoral College votes as well, as Comte points out.

@3, Florida is a red state by a paper-thin margin. Increased population, coming from areas other than the rest of the South, means Florida is a good candidate for solid blue status soon. Obama won it; so did Gore, in reality.

Likewise, just because Texas is red doesn't mean that their newest population is red, though they're a long, long ways from turning blue as a delegation (especially given the ludicrous redistricting shenanigans there).

What blows my mind is Massachusetts. I can remember when they had TWICE the seats we did, 14 to 7; now we have two more, 10 to 8. We're 13th now? Mind is blown. It wasn't all that long ago that we were in the bottom half -- 1970s. We've passed Alabama, Connecticut, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri, Tennessee, and Wisconsin since then.

@5, it's not that simple. LA and MO are states that went for McCain and lost seats; NV went for Obama, and gained. And in the others -- ALL of the others -- the gain and loss is not strictly one party or the other. We're unlikely to see a blue seat coming out of Utah anytime soon, but I wouldn't count out Florida. And even in Texas, there are currently nine Democrats, and as recently as 2005 a majority of their House delegation was Dem.

The 00-10 WA state growth rate was the lowest since 1940.

Also, if you look at your map, The West doesn't mean the West Coast.

I guess the thing that makes me feel that way Fnarf is that most of the states that gained congressional seats have strong GOP-dominant state legislatures (NV & WA being the only exceptions I believe), so, as we've seen in the past, I'm anticipating the redistricting that occurs in those states will favor GOP candidates, which of course means a greater likelihood those seats that were Dem in other states will go Republican in the states where they've been reassigned.

I love it.

My Dad can't lose a seat (Vermont only has 1 seat with 2 senators), and we gain one!

WOO HOO!

Sad thing is that millions of undocumented immigrants were counted in those soon to be red districts and the new congressmen in those new districts will vote against immigration reform, essentially voting against the people who put them in office. Many of the new people counted will not be able to vote. F#&%* Republicans.

@8, every time I think you couldn't possibly misunderstand things any worse, you go and do exactly that. Both of your points here are not just besides the point but actively against the point. The growth rate being very slightly lower is simply a function of starting from a higher base. 2010 represents a gain of something 875,000 people, which is impressively large.

And your remark about the West, a place you have zero understanding of, ignores the most obvious fact about it: away from the coast, few people live there, even still. ID + MT + WY + ND + SD + NE is less than WA; so is OR + ID + MT +WY. NV + UT + ID is the same as WA, even with two additional seats. The west coast, defined as WA + OR + CA only, has exactly twice as many seats as the rest of the west combined -- NV + UT + AZ + ID + MT + WY + CO + NM and AK + HI as well.

I think what everyone is missing here and failing to consider is the demographic make-up of the added residents in the states that gained representation. It may not be prudent to presume a state with added representation will necessarily vote as it had in the past.

New York's 2 lost seats are almost certainly in red (upstate NY) areas, too, so that is not necessarily a loss for the Democrats.

@12 When I look at ID + MT + WY + ND + SD + NE from outer space, I can pinch them between my finger and thumb ...

The problem is gerrymandering, which is why we eventually (over time), always split up states.

Nate Silver (my nerd hero) has a great analysis of how the redistricting will likely effect votes, broken down state by state:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com…

He predicts that it will actually result in a 1 house seat gain by Republicans in WA, despite being a generally blue state.

@13 -- the reason I suggested this is somewhat anecdotal, however it is based on Angle's defeat in the NV senate race. It was by a substantial margin, and it was not predicted by the pollsters. I am beginning to wonder if the GOP's Doc Hastings might not be in trouble in Yakima during the 2012 and/or 2014 election cycles.

Yes, we're screwed. Reapportionment creates more red districts. When people relocate, they tend to take on the political coloration of their destinations - not to propagate those of their origins. Most redistricting will be controlled by GOP machines. And that's on top of the GOP's current ~20-25 seat structural advantage created by dense urban Democratic strongholds and majority-minority districts.

Next year's House will have 9 D's from Texas (down from 12 today), but the R's have supermajority power in the state lege (thanks to late party-switchers). The 4 new seats could all go R, AND multiple D incumbents could be redistricted out. Florida likewise. And the natural configuration for a NV 4-seater is 3 Republican district wedges surrounding a high-density Democratic Clark County hub.

Eventually, gerrymandering breaks down. Usually in tidal wave elections.

@15, you are a shithead. You've had this state-splitting bug in your ass for a long time now, but the truth is, only two states have ever split, and the most recent was Virginia/West Virginia almost 150 years ago, 2/3 of the lifetime of the republic ago. And that took secession to accomplish.

I like more accurate apportionment but I can't say I'm thrilled about six new seats from Texas and Florida... or any of the other new seats outside Washington, really. I don't have the data to cry gerrymandering - and unlike WiS, I actually do let lack of evidence stop me from shooting my mouth off - but this sure is a generally regressive trend, and that, frankly, sucks.

@21 it's regressive only if we don't have immigration reform, actually.

Oh, come on, people. The real swings from red to blue and back again come about from the movement of independents and moderates one way or the other, and this movement vastly outstrips the change from reapportionment. Didn't the recent election teach you anything? What was it, 68 seats changing party? That will happen again, in the other direction.

Most of the lost seats in NY, OH, etc. are going to be from rural districts anyways.

Also, not every conservative state has Texas style redistricting, and a lot of the states in the south need federal approval for their districts due to the VRA.

@4 - In case anyone was curious, I just ran some half-assed numbers (based on these numbers). Given Chicago Fan's model, with Wyoming's population as the unit of measure, there would be 544 seats in the House (plus 1 if you give DC anything). Washington would have 11 of those, and California and Texas would gain 15 and 10 seats, respectively.

Provided I have nothing to do at work all afternoon, I'm going to continue to fiddle with these numbers for my own amusement.

@26 - Not quite. The system he proposes would slightly favor the larger states; it would mean that the people are represented more equally in the house, and that in, say, a presidential election, a vote in Wyoming is not worth more than a vote in California.

The way it is now, states are given a proportional share of the 435, but are guaranteed a minimum of 1 representative. Thus, states with less than 1/435 of the US population (i.e. AK, ND, VT, WY) get disproportionate representation, and disproportionate representation is what the Senate is for.

@me - I forgot for a minute how electoral votes are calculated. In the case of presidential elections, Wyoming would still carry more weight than its population merits. But election reform is another conversation entirely.

Come on, Fnarf. That's like saying a snowstorm disproves global warming.

The central tendency is distorted by these effects in the House, the Senate is likewise affected by entirely different small/rural state effects. Swings occur, but the dice are still loaded.

@15: Holy shit, you've been to space?
Can you go back there, and stay for a while?

Case in point, re the arts of advantage, Ohio 2002:

following Census 2000, the Republicans went on in the next five elections to win a higher percentage of the races -- 62 percent -- than they had in decades while collecting a smaller percentage of the overall head-to-head vote against Democrats -- 51 percent -- than they had in the 10 years leading up to the changes.

God this growth depresses me.