It Has Finally Happened: Florida Surpasses New York To Become Number Three State In Population!

What has been predicted for a few years has finally happened! The Census Bureau announced new population figures yesterday,

Florida, the Sunshine State, has finally surpassed New York as the number three state in population!

Florida in July 2014 had 19.9 million residents to New York’s 19.7 million people, behind California with 38.8 million and Texas with 27 million.

Overall, the population of the nation increased to about 319 million.

803 residents are being added daily to Florida, while six states–Illinois, West Virginia, Connecticut, New Mexico, Alaska and Vermont—actually lost population.

The top ten states in growth were all Sunbelt states, except for North Dakota, gaining population because of the oil boom in that state.

2.4 million people were added to the population from the previous year.

The power of the Sun Belt continues to grow, while the top four states now have a combined population of 105.4 million, about one third of the entire nation!

This means that the top four states with one third of the people have only eight Senators, while the remaining 46 states have the other 92 Senators, an extremely undemocratic situation, something that the Founding Fathers could not have imagined when they created the Constitution and set up the US Senate as a government institution!

5 comments on “It Has Finally Happened: Florida Surpasses New York To Become Number Three State In Population!

  1. D December 24, 2014 2:01 pm

    I live in Michigan. It was supplanted by Georgia with ranking No. 8 in all states’ populations. I’m anticipating, while we’re still in the 2010s, that Michigan will also get supplanted by North Carolina. So, in effect, Michigan will have fallen from No. 8 to No. 10.

    One thing about Florida: It remains a bellwether state. Every presidential election since 1928, minus the Democratic pickup years of 1960 and 1992, have seen Florida carry for presidential winners. That’s an 84-year period in which the state has gone with the winners in 20 of 22 election cycles. And, in that same period, no Republican has won the presidency without carriage of Florida. In that this is also the truth with Ohio (the two states vote alike even in margins), it is not feasible that a Republican can win the presidency without Florida.

  2. Ronald December 24, 2014 3:18 pm

    So, D, with that statement of fact, the GOP MUST run either Jeb Bush or Marco Rubio of Florida, or John Kasich of Ohio, with my thought that Kasich is the best bet.

    But even so, the likelihood of the GOP carrying Florida or Ohio is not good!

  3. Ronald December 24, 2014 3:19 pm

    And, D, according to the Census, Michigan has fallen to number 10, behind both Georgia and North Carolina!

  4. D December 25, 2014 2:11 pm

    Ronald writes, “And, D, according to the Census, Michigan has fallen to number 10, behind both Georgia and North Carolina!”

    I thank you, Ronald, for that information. And I should get a hold of it over the Internet. (By the way: I wish you a healthy and happy holiday period.)

    What this means is that, in the next decade, the congressional seats and electoral votes from North Carolina will no longer remain one less (on both counts) than that of Michigan. Results from the 2010 U.S. Census Bureau had North Carolina not having moved up a notch (compared to 2000). But, it’s been coming. Michigan was the only state, via 2010 reporting, that lost numerically in population.

    It will be interesting to see how much Florida continues to grow, over New York, and whether this moves up Florida (which, via 2010, matched New York with 27 congressional districts and 29 electoral votes). It’s liable to do grow by one (with each count).

    The state of Texas tends to intrigue me most. I think there’s a consensus that its 38 electoral votes (applicable to the presidential elections of 2012, 2016, and 2020) will grow to reaching at least 40 for the next decade (applicable to the presidential elections of 2024 and 2028). This would be at a similar level as to what New York had in the 1970s. In that decade, New York fell from the No. 1 to No. 2 most-populous state as California surpassed the Empire State for the top slot. In the presidential elections of 1972, 1976, and 1980, New York was allocated with 41 electoral votes. (This is with respect to also having the currently established availability of 538 electoral votes between 50 states plus District of Columbia.) This really tells us a lot about the prominence of the Lone Star State. And, given that the state of Texas seems to be turning out about two million less votes than should be expected in participation in presidential elections (in 2012, it had slightly under 8 million; even Florida, two-thirds the size of Texas, had more presidential votes cast) … it would be wise for Democrats to build their party up in this state and see if they can go the distance with having a winning campaign that includes flipping Texas. It would be wise because, given the slightly under 8 million president raw votes cast, and President George. W. Bush’s 2000 and 2004 numbers in carrying his home state, there’s about a 20 percentage-point advantage for the Republicans which translate into a raw-vote advantage of about 1.6 million for that party. (Currently!) Given there should have been about 10 million votes cast from a 2012 Texas, that leaves about two million Texans who did not turn out. If the Democrats really want to win over Texas, and its continuing growth along with its potential, the party should be paying attention, develop a strategy, and pursue it. And in some respect, they are: @ [“Citing U.S. Census Bureau information based on voter surveys every even-numbered year, the report said Texas ranked 48th in turnout in 2012 ….”].

    Thanks, again, Ronald!

  5. Ronald December 25, 2014 8:31 pm

    D, once the Democrats can flip Texas, with the large Latino vote, the Electoral College will guarantee a Democratic President for the long haul, unless states start to move toward the idea of division of electoral votes based upon congressional districts, which would heavily favor the Republicans in the long haul.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.