Many Americans still burdened with constitutional rights

[james_davis_nicoll]

Using data provided by the U.S. Census Bureau, the ACLU has determined that nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders.

The government is assuming extraordinary powers to stop and search individuals within this zone. This is not just about the border: This " Constitution-Free Zone" includes most of the nation's largest metropolitan areas.

Is the claim that "nearly 2/3 of the entire US population (197.4 million people) live within 100 miles of the US land and coastal borders" correct? That would seem to require that the rest of the country contains slightly over 1/3rd of the population and since my incredibly untrustworthy eye thinks the first area is much smaller than the second, it implies even lower population densities than I expected for the interior regions.

Comments

[sraun]

Yeah, I could believe that. I know that we've been concentrating in cities for the past 100 years or so, most big cities are within 100 miles of a coast - that piles up really quickly.

I'd guess that it's safe to assume for any state with an ocean coast that most of the state's population lives within 100 miles of the coast. Go look at the US Representatives if you'd like another quick comparison - Maine has two Representatives; Alaska, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Wyoming all have one. Note that each state must have a minimum of one Representative - if Maine has two, what does that say about the population density of those big states with one each?

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Well (typing from a location in Maine) it means that we're about to lose a representative in the next national census. Our population hasn't been growing. Other states have.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Actually I did a spreadsheet with current population projections to 2010 and Maine is in no danger at all of losing a representative. Iowa, Louisiana, Missouri, Massachusetts, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York will each lose one with Minnesota being on the edge should another state (Texas) gain more population than it.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Whee! That represents (representatives?) a change from projections I saw after the last census. Or was it the one before that? Things get muddled after a few decades . . .

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Which states does or does not get a representative is not a straightforward process. This wikipedia page explains it pretty well. But a simple way to think of the situation is this: Main currently has more population than New Hampshire, Hawaii, and Rhode Island, other states with two representatives. In order for Maine to drop to one Rep. either it would have to fall behind those states and be next to Montana or else other states like Texas, Arizona, and Florida would have to gain population so quickly that it first takes away the representatives of those states before Maine loses one. Make sense?

[spikebrennan.livejournal.com]

Yeah, and check out the Alabama Paradox. Makes my head hurt.

[mishalak.livejournal.com]

Also you are wrong about Maine not growing. Its population is growing at 4% per decade, more or less, and while eventually that could result in a reduction in representation due to it not matching US population growth it is a long way off.

[apis-mellifera.livejournal.com]

On the other hand, Delaware--which is on the coast and which is right next to the Delaware River--only has one US Representative. Rhode Island, which is smaller than Delaware when you look at area, has two.