Ouch! OK. I mistype all the time. The "Last edited by septimus; Today at 02:39 AM… " in the previous post was because my fingers mis-hit and got ‘2018’ for ‘2019.’
I remember thinking your “New York lost 130,000 people between 2020 and 2019” was peculiar — why the 2020/2019 reversal — but the mistake didn’t dawn on me.
So you don’t have any inside info on the 2020 NY number. Of course I already had the Census numbers. :smack:
Anyway, I stand by my claims that
NY is quite close to the borderline between losing one seat and losing two seats;
the virus might increase the chance that NY loses two seats;
if NY does lose 2 then Alabama, possibly with the aid of shenanigans, is likely to to be the state that gets that extra seat (i.e. that AL will remain at 9 seats rather than dropping to 8 as expected).
ETA: In one post I wrote
I don’t think it would be possible for you to study that post (which quotes your typo) without coming up with an Aha! An extra 20 seconds of attention by you would have saved me several minutes.
Message boards are good when they give you time to think and even research an answer before you post. They’re bad when a simple misunderstanding that would take a moment to clear up in conversation derails an exhange indefiniately.
The main idea I was thinking of when I started this thread was: After 10 years of Republican gerrymandering in certain states, who will be in charge of the re-gerrymandering (or un-gerrymandering) for the next ten years?
From all the responses above, it sounds like the current gerrymanders will still be in effect for the upcoming November election, but the newly elected or re-elected administrations in the various states will draw the districts for the next 10 years.
Yes. Another reason why November’s election is extremely important. Ousting Trump without flipping some State Houses (and the Senate) will be a hollow victory.
Sorry for the hijack (and the nine messages wasted pursuing a typo :smack: ), but the Census — which IS controlled by today’s incumbents — is important, not only as to House seats per state, but as to the redistrictings within states.
Worth noting, some states have referendum processes by which the citizens can directly implement things like redistricting reforms without cooperation from the legislature. So in those states, the party in control of the legislature can’t gerrymander themselves into a permanent unassailable unrepresentative majority.
That’s mostly correct, and its large effect can be seen by the Republicans’ widespread taking of legislatures in 2010. The Ballotpediapage is a must read.
As I mentioned above, though, the states have to wait for Congress to do a new distribution of seats. If for any reason - and this census may provide one - Congress does not reallocate in the year after the census, then it’s possible for subsequent elections to produce the state legislatures responsible for drawing the new districts. Additionally, not all states have their elections in even years. Some states will have a 2021 election that may choose those in charge.
To add a complication, states work in their usual independent and individualistic ways, per Wikipedia.
And one of those states with a single Representative, Montana, is one of the ones that’s expected to gain a seat this census, so they’ll have to start districting, which they haven’t done in decades
(I was surprised to learn that, for most of the state’s history, it’s had two seats.)
Of course I already had the Census numbers. :smack: