,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
1. How dramatically has our population shifted in the past century? Compare the House seats in the lower 48 states in 1930 (from the 1920 Census) to today (from the 2010 Census).
In 1930, Iowa had as many House seats as California. The Dakotas had 6, Florida had 4.
In 1930, Iowa had as many House seats as California. The Dakotas had 6, Florida had 4.
2. The Northeast and Rust Belt, of course, have taken a beating: NY, PA,, MA, OH, IN, ME, RI, VT. But look at the Mississippi valley & Great Plains: MO had 16 House seats in 1930. IL, IA, AR, LA, MS, KY, ND, SD, KS, OK, WI.
3. In racial-demographics terms, with a few exceptions - NY, WA, UT - the states that have gained since 1930 are ones with a lot of immigrants and/or non-whites; the losers have been those with mainly a homegrown, white population.
4. A very, very large factor. Also the decline of U.S. auto & steel dominance, the Dust Bowl, and the declining importance of family farms & river transportation.
5. One of the interesting dynamics in the growth of the rising trio of dominant states is that Texas grew organically - steady growth over the whole past century - while CA & FL grew through explosive fits of in-migration, domestic & foreign. Why TX has a more stable culture.
6. We have, today, a hard time picturing the days when Missouri, Iowa, Arkansas & Oklahoma sent 42 people to the House, or when there were 79 Congressmen just from NY & Pennsylvania.
7. By contrast, I was surprised that Michigan was stable - it hadn't really taken off by 1920, so the gains it has given back since about 1960 don't show up on the chart.
