Reapportionment after the 2010 census

One purpose of the census is to give us population data in order to determine the relative political power of the states .

A new estimate of the 2010 census is out, calculating which states lose or gain house seats and therefore electoral votes.

The list is (the parenthesis indicated the Cook Partisan Voting Index of how Republican or Democrat the state is):

Utah (20R) +1
Texas (10R) +4
South Carolina (8R) +1
Georgia (7R) +1
Arizona (6R) +1
Florida (2R) +2
Nevada (1D) +1
Washington (5D) +1

Massachusetts (12D) -1
New York (10D) -2
Illinois (8D) -1
Michigan (4D) -1
New Jersey (4D) -1
Pennsylvania. (2D) -1
Iowa, (1D) -1
Louisiana (10R) -1
Ohio (1R) -2
Missouri (3R) -1

Basically you have Republican states getting net +6 seats and the Democrat states losing -6. This means 1 more Kansas sized state to the Republicans.

Another way of counting is that solidly Republican states gain 7, solidly Democrat states lose 5, and battleground states lose 2.

In a 2008-style major victory, none of this matters. But if we in 2012 get an even year like 2000 or 2004, this redistribution of power might influence the outcome.

You need 270 for a majority (269 if your party controls the house). Start with the 2004 map.

Bush got 286, taking three Democrat states of Iowa, Nevada and New Mexico. With the new figures, he would have gotten 294.

This means a Republican aiming for the Bush map in 2012 can afford to lose 24 electoral votes. For example he can win even though losing:

New Mexico and Iowa and Nevada and 7 more electoral votes
New Mexico and Iowa and Colorado and 4 more electoral votes
Ohio + either Iowa or Nevada or New Mexico

There are 3 reasons political power is shifting. One reason is that Democrat states have a lower rate of reproduction, and lose people. This is a pure republican win.

Another reason is immigration. Since immigrants are leftwing, this means that while the red states are getting larger, they are also getting less red (witness Nevada that is trending to the Democrats). It is not clear who this benefits, sometimes the Republicans, sometimes the Democrats. Over the long run I think the Democrats.

Lastly you have native Americans moving between states. It would be interesting to study how this effects political views.

Are the people who are moving on average republicans sick of the expensive, high tax blue states? That could make the new states even more red (for example there is the notion that out of California migrants did this in the Rocky Mountain states).

Are they typical liberal blue state voters who bring their values with them? That would make the red states more blue. This seems to have happened in New Hampshire where Democrats from Massachusetts settled.

A last possibility that I suspect has some explanatory power is that the (on averge) more blue voters in time will be effected by the social pressures and information in their new states to move rightwing.