CSNbbs

Quote:In total, there would be a shift of 9 seats: 6 Southern and Western states would gain seats (Texas would add 3 seats and Florida would add 2 seats) and 9 predominantly Midwestern and Northeastern states would each lose one seat.

https://www.ncdemography.org/2017/12/21/...an-update/

Here's an updated article based on the Census Bureau's final estimate; according to this your map stays the exact same except MT will gain a seat (going from 1 to 2) while CA loses one (53 to 52, the first time they'll have ever lost a seat in history). RI shrinks from to just 1 rep if this comes to pass, WV down to 2.

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/30...020-091451

According to my math, red states from 2016 will see a net gain of three seats/electoral votes at the expense of blue, though upcoming state legislature elections will obviously influence actual changes to a huge extent (especially in the Rust Belt).

I think you're seeing the beginning of a California population bleed out like NY and NJ and IL and every other ultra high tax one party state. That's bad news for responsible government in Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, and Washington which are far and away where the most Californians are leaving. Each of those states picked up more than 25,000 new Californians just in 2018 according to census.gov.

(01-02-2020 07:44 PM)georgia_tech_swagger Wrote: [ -> ]I think you're seeing the beginning of a California population bleed out like NY and NJ and IL and every other ultra high tax one party state. That's bad news for responsible government in Nevada, Arizona, Oregon, Colorado, Texas, and Washington which are far and away where the most Californians are leaving. Each of those states picked up more than 25,000 new Californians just in 2018 according to census.gov.

Pretty remarkable given that California is the international hub for the most dynamic sector of the economy, has a location right on the Mexican border for migration purposes, and doesn't have another state competing for residents within the same metro area like you have for NYC, Chicago, Kansas City, etc.

I'm curious if red governments in the likes of Texas, Arizona, etc. have implemented policies to try keeping out-of-state moves down under the guise of keeping cost of living stable, with the added benefit off dissuading political outsiders from their point of view. You have states like Vermont and Maine paying people to move there, I wonder if there's some kind of opposite policy that'll become common (but likely have negative unintended consequences that come with it).