Kari, maybe in the comments could you explain your process a little bit more, specifically the way you calculate the seat allocation based on the estimates?

Two things to keep in mind--one of which you note--is that the intercensal estimates are by nature not as accurate as the decennial survey, since they are samples. The decennial survey used for apportionment of seats is still the headcount version, and will be unless the Obama administration overturns the Bush decision to deny sampling for apportionment (and any challenges are resolved). So while it gives a good guide, and I think probably makes a reasonable case that it's not a foregone conclusion OR will pick up a seat. Also worth noting is that the locality (in this case the whole state) can challenge the censal estimate in court, if they believe they were shortchanged. And if it came out and OR was just a bit short of getting that seat, you'd better believe we'll challenge. (I hope!)

The other thing to keep in mind is that for the first time in 2009, the drive to give DC a vote may actually pass. Smith was one of the filibusterers, and I believe Merkley is in favor. It was pretty close to begin with, and the DCVote people are pretty optimistic it will happen.

I bring this up because part of the deal in the bill last time was that Utah would get a corresponding pickup so there's no brouhaha over giving the Dems a rock-solid seat, effectively a +1 pickup. With a larger majority these days, would there be as much push to retain that kind of deal? I don't know, but my guess would be that it would simply become an easier giveaway to the GOP. So Utah's pickup might be off the table by then--the question would be whether that would be the seat Utah loses to Oregon, or whether they would somehow try to guarantee that seat for at least one decade.

Fun to think about though, and I really need to link to AN's map. That was mindblowing!

Kari, maybe in the comments could you explain your process a little bit more, specifically the way you calculate the seat allocation based on the estimates?

Well, you start with some population numbers. The math is complex but straightforward. For the folks who want to do it themselves, I recommend the Census Bureau's explanation.

But let me describe the process in a narrative that will help explain it.

First, understand that every state gets at least one congressional seat, no matter how small. So you assign every single state a single seat.

Now, your goal is make every seat as close in population as possible to all the others. (With 310 million people and 435 seats, you want them to be roughly 692,000 each.)

So, in assigning the 51st seat, you ask yourself: which state has districts the most outta whack? Well, that's California, with a single "district" of 36 million folks. So, you assign #51 to CA (and each of the two becomes an 18 million person district.)

Now, #52. The "district" in Texas is 25 million people. So, #52 goes to TX.

<h1>53 goes to California, #54 to New York, and so on.</h1>

Pretty quickly, the states start to shake out and things start looking pretty normal.

That's a bit simplified, but you really could do all the math by hand - just recursively going through it 435 times (actually, 385 times.) But using a spreadsheet is a much better idea.

Of course, you can't get a perfect 692,000 people in each district - because districts can't cross over state lines.

So, things get outta whack. In my 2007 estimate, when Oregon just barely misses, we wind up with 749,000 per district (tied with Idaho for the largest districts in the country, among states with 2 or more.) In my seven-year-trend estimate, when we get seat #434, we'd have just 650,000 per district.

Kari,

This is s geeky. And awesome. I thought we were set. While it's nice to know the details, disappointing we're not better situated.

While it's nice to know the details, disappointing we're not better situated.

Well, we've got a couple years. The fastest way to jack up a population superfast is, hmmm... low college tuition. Get on it, JC!

You know, Kari, they are talking about a baby boom because of the state of the economy... LOL

Kari

I'll lay a modest wager (beer?) that we don't make it due to our lagging economy. We've been lagging the country on unemployment for a long time, and this recession looks no different. That may dissuade in-migration.

The only thing I see that may cut in the other direction is CA economy, which is even more in the tank than our own. Perhaps some will head north to greener pastures.

Thoughts? I honestly don't know how sensitive in-migration is to the economic situation.

In case you are wondering - the 'Wyoming rule' would be that no house district can be smaller in population than the smallest populated entity (currently Wyoming).

Huh? In the 2000 Census, Wyoming had 493,782 residents. The next smallest congressional districts were the two in Rhode Island at 524,159 each. I'm pretty sure that it would be mathematically unlikely (if not impossible) under the existing algorithm to generate a district that's smaller than the smallest single-state at-large district.

Maybe you meant "no house district can be LARGER in population"? Because that would be interesting. It would mean a big increase in overall seats -- in 2000, it would have been roughly 568 seats.

As for the DC thing, the proposal from Rep. Davis was a temporary one - give one to Utah and one to DC - but only until the 2010 redistricting.

Now, if they want to give DC full voting rights, that would be interesting. Either they could do that and bump it up to 436, or just include them in the regular process of apportioning the 435.

Kari,

Interesting that under your last scenario, California would actually lose a seat.

Basically the country is too damn big to be democratic & we should break it up into a number of smaller countries. If memory serves the original population threshold for statehood for a territory was 30,000. The Oregon is approaching the population of all of the United States in 1790 (3.9 million).

I almost feel they need to go ahead and make it 436 and give DC full voting rights. I know some have opposed DC getting a full vote in the U.S. House because they're worried about losing one of their members in Congress.

The issue of giving DC full voting rights is one I've written Gordon Smith on in the past. And it's the only one I've ever received a response on out of everything I've contacted the office about.

Basically the country is too damn big to be democratic & we should break it up into a number of smaller countries.

Do you mean a number of smaller states? I do believe that breaking up states requires an act of Congress - except in the case of Texas, where the Legislature can do it (per their original admission to statehood.)

<h2>Thanks, Jack. That's the locally-produced estimate. They'll send 'em to the Census Bureau, and then we'll see what the other 50 states look like. That said, this doesn't look good for the prospects for a 6th seat.</h2>