With 2010 Census, states expected to gain/lose seats in Electoral College and US House

from Ballot Access News
Non-Partisan Group Estimates Number of Electoral Votes in Each State in 2012

April 14th, 2009

After the 2010 census has been held, the number of seats held by each state in the U.S. House of Representatives will change. The National Conference of State Legislatures recently estimated what the 2010 reapportionment will mean for each state.

Eight states are expected to lose one seat each, in the U.S. House and in the Electoral College. They are Iowa, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Pennsylvania.

States that will gain will be Texas (3 seats), and one each for Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Nevada and Utah.

If the bill now pending in Congress to expand the House from 435 seats to 437 seats is signed into law, then one more state would gain a seat, and the District of Columbia would get its first voting seat.

4 thoughts on “With 2010 Census, states expected to gain/lose seats in Electoral College and US House

  1. Nate

    The New Hampshire House of Representatives has 400 members. However as each is only paid $200 for the 2 year term, the entire salary for the NH House is only $80000 per term, less than half what a single member of the US House is payed per year. So a fourth of what the US Representative gets per term.

    I don’t think it’s the number of seats that is the problem.

  2. Acilius

    @Libertarian Joseph: The salaries and benefits members of Congress collect are the smallest part of the cost they represent to the taxpayers. Each member wants more public money to be spent in his or her district, and each member forms alliances with other members to make that happen.

    So the question to ask is whether overall spending would be likely to go up or down if the number of representatives were increased. My guess is that it would tend to go down. If we had 635 US representatives (say) instead of 435, then junior representatives would have a significantly higher barrier to clear before they became important enough to warrant a share of the pork.

  3. Ack

    The problem with that analysis is that you believe that there is a limited amount of resources from which they can spend. If we had 635 Reps then they would have to increase spending in order to provide pork to their constituents, i.e. the shares wouldn’t get smaller, the pie would get larger. And the only way that happens is with higher taxes or more deficit spending.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *