6
   

The 2010 U.S. Census

 
 
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:02 pm
According to the nose count on a certain day, there were 308,745,538 of us. Where we are and who we are will have a large impact politically and economically for the next decade or so.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 6 • Views: 1,781 • Replies: 18
No top replies

 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:13 pm
I put out an invite to anyone on the threads where I hang out to host this thread. I got no responses. So, coming up shortly is a bit of an essay to get this started.
But first a question. The 3.8M includes illegal immigrants. What would you put that number at?
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:31 pm
The 1st round of numbers indicate that the rust belt (NY, PA, IL) lost population while the sun belt (TX, FL, AZ, NV) will gain. This will result in the southern states gaining seats in the U.S. House and also electoral votes come the next presidential election as the latter states are perceived as more Republican leaning while the former have traditionally been more Democrat.
Does that make sense?
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:34 pm
@realjohnboy,
that's a rhetorical question, right...?
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:42 pm
@Rockhead,
I realize I am talking to myself, RH. I am probably the only person on A2K who gives a **** enough about census data to actually keep a notebook going on it.
Perhaps I should take up stamp collecting.
Rockhead
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:44 pm
@realjohnboy,
what am I, chopped liver...?

(nods to Boida)

0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:45 pm
Rather senseless anyway, maybe that should be censusless. The figures aren't accurate. Even the illegal figurines are wrong.

I refused to submit on this invasion in my personal life. They asked many questions I didn't like the sound of and there were codes bar codes which meant the could trace you back. Screw them and their spy attempts.

Past times I've answered and then there was the time I made up fictionals, even inclcluded a cat.



Screw them and their spying attempts at invading my space.
Cycloptichorn
 
  0  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:45 pm
The census is a good thing, but our reactions to it are typically poor, on both a personal and a political level.

For example, the vast majority of growth in most states is in urban areas - big cities. These cities typically vote Democratic in elections. But many of these states have Republican legislatures, who use this population growth to... get more Republican legislators in office Confused

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Sturgis
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 02:52 pm
@realjohnboy,
I did stamp collecting, philatelists are highly under appreciated.
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 03:01 pm
Much was made of Texas gaining 4 House seats while seats were lost up north. The census data shows that 63% of the added population in Texas was driven by Hispanics. Florida's two seat gain was 51% driven by Hispanics.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 07:37 pm
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

I realize I am talking to myself, RH. I am probably the only person on A2K who gives a **** enough about census data to actually keep a notebook going on it.
Perhaps I should take up stamp collecting.


You're not talking to yourself. I'm very interested in this analysis. It is just at the moment, I am overly saturated with the reporting of politics, political maneuvering and manipulating, and political commentary. I need a break from it.

I just read the topic starter because it was authored by you. Can I take a rain check and come back to participate in this analysis in a week?

0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 08:22 pm
What happens next after the census is the craft of redistricting. Even in states that neither gain nor lose a seat in Congress, there are redrawing of lines such that each district within the state has roughly the same number of people. A computer could do that, I guess, but overlaying that is the concept that the district should consist of people with some kinds of common interests. Farmers, ranchers, yuppies, urbanites, and not so subtly, blacks or whites or Hispanics.
Which brings us to the art of gerrymandering, where districts, often with bizarre shapes, are designed to include or exclude voters or to protect or deny seats to one or another political party.
Texas will gain 4 seats. But it is still under the eye of of the Voting Rights Act. It's history of racial discrimination requires it to redistrict so as to not put minorities at a disadvantage. Two districts in Texas will be created that will heavily favor Repubs (who control the process) but the other two will likely be largely Hispanic.

(By the way, I keep tripping over Hispanic vs Latino. I prefer the latter, I think, but the media seems to go for the former).
ossobuco
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 08:35 pm
@realjohnboy,
that may be east and west..
0 Replies
 
realjohnboy
 
  1  
Reply Sat 25 Dec, 2010 10:31 pm
Two comments before going to bed:
One is a quote from a Washington Post article from Dec 22nd-
Sen David Vitter (R-La): " Louisiana stands to lose clout in Congress, while states that welcome illegal immigrants stand to unfairly benefit from artificially inflated population totals."
From the same article, but from another person: "...(T)he majority of Hispanics are in the country legally and ... among the Latino population younger than 18, more than 90 percent are citizens."
This latter person seemed to differentiate between Hispanic and Latino. That struck me as odd.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2010 10:06 am
@realjohnboy,
realjohnboy wrote:

The 1st round of numbers indicate that the rust belt (NY, PA, IL) lost population while the sun belt (TX, FL, AZ, NV) will gain. This will result in the southern states gaining seats in the U.S. House and also electoral votes come the next presidential election as the latter states are perceived as more Republican leaning while the former have traditionally been more Democrat.
Does that make sense?

In the long run, demographics are more important than geography. Younger voters have trended Democratic over the last 6-8 years and that appears to be continuing. Conservative voters, in contrast, tend to be older and whiter. In 30 years or so, the US will be a majority-minority country, and the conservative voters of today will be safely ensconced in their graves, safe at last from the onslaught of all those brown people. Most of the increase in population in Texas and Florida, for instance, is the result of Hispanics, who tend to vote Democratic (although not in the same percentages as blacks).

In the long run, then, the additional congressional seats in the south and west won't necessarily be safe Republican districts. In the short run, however, I expect that the Republican legislatures will do their best to gerrymander the hell out of those congressional boundaries.
0 Replies
 
djjd62
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Dec, 2010 10:17 am
@Sturgis,
Sturgis wrote:
Screw them and their spying attempts at invading my space.


Cycloptichorn wrote:
The census is a good thing, but our reactions to it are typically poor, on both a personal and a political level.


funny, i'm the first to admit i find all politicians to be scumbag liars and politics in general a reprehensible endeavour for a decent human being to engage in*

that being said, i love the census, i think its good for the country (canada in my case) and am disappointed that the government is screwing around with the long form census this year (getting rid of it), bring on the questions i say

* i like government, i just feel there has to be a better way of administering it than politics
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:13 pm
There are some interactive maps and graphs at MSNBC that show the changes in population state by state since 1940. There are tabs that also show population density and apportionment for the same period in each state.
0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:45 pm
@realjohnboy,
This Wikipedia article has the historical data on apportionment:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_congressional_apportionment

joefromchicago wrote:
In the long run, demographics are more important than geography.


This Wikipedia article has the current list of Congressional Districts by state with links to a list of demographics for each district in each state:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_congressional_districts

0 Replies
 
Butrflynet
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Dec, 2010 10:58 pm
The CS Monitor has a few good articles and columns on the limits to gerrymandering and the voting rights act:

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1222/Democrats-don-t-panic-over-post-Census-redistricting

http://www.csmonitor.com/Commentary/Opinion/2010/1222/Democrats-last-line-of-defense-against-GOP-gerrymandering-the-Voting-Rights-Act

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/2010/1105/Big-perk-for-GOP-in-state-election-wins-more-power-in-redistricting
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » The 2010 U.S. Census
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/25/2022 at 04:03:54