Here's How the 2020 Census Results Are Shaking Up the Congressional Map by Spencer Brown
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The United States Census Bureau announced the results of its decennial count of the American population Monday afternoon. According to census officials, the United States counted 331,449,281 among its population, an increase of 7.4% since the last census was conducted in 2010.
The first results of the #2020Census are in! Watch our live virtual news conference here: https://t.co/RHvocjkXow#Apportionment#CensusBureaupic.twitter.com/DcpOkjbwz8
— U.S. Census Bureau (@uscensusbureau) April 26, 2021
The U.S. population growth from 2010 to 2020 is less than the previous 10-year period that saw a 9.7% increase between 2000 to 2010. Regionally, the South grew the most with 10.2% growth from 2010 to 2020, while the West grew 9.2%, the Northeast grew 4.1%, and the Midwest grew 3.1%. Utah was the fastest-growing state with an 18.4% increase while West Virginia showed the largest rate of decrease at -3.2%.
In addition to seeing population movements, the census also decides apportionment, the process of determining how many members each state is represented by in the U.S. House of Representatives.
As a result of the 2020 count, a total of seven congressional seats will be shifting among 13 different states, according to the U.S. Census Bureau—the smallest number of seats shifting among the states in any decade since 1941.
Texas gains two congressional seats, while Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gain one seat. The shift means that California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia will each lose one House seat.
In response to a question during Monday's briefing, census officials revealed that if just 89 more individuals had been counted in New York while the data from other states remained constant, the Empire State would not have lost any congressional seats in the apportionment process.
The Census Bureau just released the first #2020Census results, which included the number of seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives. Here are the results ?? https://t.co/RHvocjkXow#Apportionment#CensusBureaupic.twitter.com/2QuyrHccDJ
— U.S. Census Bureau (@uscensusbureau) April 26, 2021
Even though California loses one seat as a result of the 2020 census, it remains the state sending the most members to the U.S. House with 52 seats, followed by Texas (38 seats), Florida (28 seats), and New York (26 seats).
Recommended A Rigged System Can't Last Kurt Schlichter
Each member of the U.S. House will represent an average of 761,169 people following reapportionment, an increase of about 50,000 constituents for each member of congress over the 2010 census average.
The apportionment data revealed Monday decides the nation's congressional map until the next census is conducted a decade from now, with the new map impacting the 2022 midterm elections as well as the number of electoral college votes each state will cast in the 2024 presidential election.
Tags
Who is online
213 visitors
Texas gains two congressional seats, while Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon each gain one seat. The shift means that California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia will each lose one House seat.
People also vote with their feet.
The biggest cause of the population slowdown is the declining birthrate. Today, the average American adult of child-rearing age has 17 percent fewer children than in 1990 — and about 50 percent fewer than in 1960. The U.S. still has a higher fertility rate than Japan and Germany, but it is in the same range as Britain and Sweden and below France and Ireland. There are now more Americans 80 and older than 2 or younger.
There are some advantages to slower population growth. A lower birthrate can expand the economic opportunities for women, especially because the U.S. has relatively flimsy child care programs . Historically, birthrates have declined as societies become more educated and wealthier .
Lower levels of immigration can also have upsides. The big wage gains for American workers during the mid-20th century had many causes, including strong labor unions, rising educational attainment and high tax rates on top incomes. But the tight immigration restrictions of that period also played a role.
The amount of kids in the earlier years of the US were high for several reasons though... chances of 14 kids all surviving past the age of 2 was much slimmer. People also didn't have birth control. They also had a need to have a lot of kids to "work the farms" in many instances as well. While I'm sure that higher education and wealth are partial factors, the fact remains that with modern technology and medicine, it's unnecessary to have a large family today. Hell, it's far too expensive to have a large family today.
The skills necessary today to make a living and raising a family are also not the same as what was necessary in the 1700s through early 1900s. Learning how to code is more important today than making one's own clothes, for example. Don't get me wrong... there's still importance in many things that were important back then, but it doesn't hold the same importance as it once did.
I'd like to add to that the change in lifestyle. How much did the "pill" have to do with creating the option of not having children?
Right... like I said, birth control unavailable. Birth control pills hadn't been available to the public until 1960.
So the world is going through an enormous demographic change. The final epilogue for the west may be that they adequately civilized their replacements. We can only hope.