# 41 TheInmatesAreTryingToRunTheAsylum

The following article just appeared from Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo! News.  Please remember that these petitions are from citizens of the states, not from state officials.  In the past, only Texas has made any official noise about seceding (that I've heard of, at least), and that was the governor Rick Perry's running it up the flagpole to see if anyone would salute.  Yes, that is Rick Perry of "Does this ass make my truck look big" fame, from the Republican primary season.

I'm of two minds about these secession petitions.  Texas could probably survive, what with its oil and crops and large population. And that's fine with me.  They could then deal with the Mexican border all on their own, without our federal marshalls and troops.

The Blue states whose occasional citizen is petitioning don't need to secede, and probably won't.  But it's those other Red states (other than Texas) whose petitioning citizens I think really have their heads up their butts.  They are net takers of financial assistance from the feds, not net contributors to the fed.  If we let them secede (and, no, I'm not fully serious; just don't push too hard--it wouldn't take much for me to become serious with these particular states), we could likely come close to balancing the federal budget just from the savings from not financing their reactionary craziness.  But then we'd need to build a fence around what is basically most of the old Confederacy, to avoid illegal immigration from Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana and the like.  I find it "funny" that Georgia has petitioned twice: they never could get things right the first time.

"Hell, No.  Let 'em Go!" I can already hear the chant at SEC football games.  And the cheers from the rest of us.  Enjoy the article.  It's probably not the last we'll hear of secession.

"Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government" indeed.
-----     -----     -----

Mike Krumboltz, Yahoo! News:

In the wake of last week's presidential election, thousands of Americans have signed petitions seeking permission for their states to peacefully secede from the United States. The petitions were filed on We the People, a government website.

States with citizens filing include Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. Oddly, folks from Georgia have filed twice. Even stranger, several of the petitions come from states that went for President Barack Obama.

The petitions are short and to the point. For example, a petition from the Volunteer State reads: "Peacefully grant the State of Tennessee to withdraw from the United States of America and create its own NEW government." Of all the petitions, Texas has the most signatures so far, with more than 23,000.

Of course, this is mostly a symbolic gesture. The odds of the American government granting any state permission to go its own way are on par with winning the lottery while getting hit by a meteor while seeing Bigfoot while finding gluten-free pizza that tastes like the real thing.

An article from WKRC quotes a University of Louisville political science professor who explained that these petitions aren't uncommon. Similar petitions were filed following the 2004 and 2008 elections. Still, should the petitions garner 25,000 signatures in a month, they will require an official response from the Obama administration.
From the We the People site:

The right to petition your government is guaranteed by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution. We the People provides a new way to petition the Obama Administration to take action on a range of important issues facing our country. We created We the People because we want to hear from you. If a petition gets enough support, White House staff will review it, ensure it's sent to the appropriate policy experts, and issue an official response.

Not everybody who wants to secede is polite enough to write a petition. Peter Morrison, treasurer of the Hardin County (Texas) Republican Party, wrote a post-election newsletter in which he urges the Lone Star State to leave the Union.

"We must contest every single inch of ground and delay the baby-murdering, tax-raising socialists at every opportunity. But in due time, the maggots will have eaten every morsel of flesh off of the rotting corpse of the Republic, and therein lies our opportunity... Why should Vermont and Texas live under the same government? Let each go her own way in peace, sign a free trade agreement among the states and we can avoid this gut-wrenching spectacle every four years."

# 40 My conservative (small "c") Predilection

Without further punning, I'm enclosing my projections on Tuesday's results...which results we may not know, so the pundits say, until mid/late November.  I've assigned the "leaning" states' electoral votes to one or the other camps, and have come up with

Obama 287
Romney 251

I really don't think it will be that close, but I'm also trying to account for Ohio's electronic voting machines (at least some of which are apparently owned by Tagg Romney), Florida's historical incompetence in tallying votes, voter suppression laws in several states, and of course the Sandy-engendered difficulties in getting to the polling places in several northeastern states that tend to vote Democratic.

Here are my presumed state-by-state tallies.  If I'm correct, remember: you heard it here first.  If I'm incorrect...you don't remember where you heard it.

·        Alaska - 3, unchanged.

·        Alabama – 9, unchanged. 

·        Arizona - 11, an increase of 1 electoral vote.

·        Arkansas - 6, unchanged.

·        California - 55, unchanged.

·        Colorado - 9, unchanged.

·        Connecticut - 7, unchanged.

·        Delaware - 3, unchanged.

·        District of Columbia - 3, unchanged.

·        Florida - 29, an increase of 2 electoral votes.

·        Georgia - 16, an increase of 1 electoral vote.

·        Hawaii - 4, unchanged.

·        Idaho - 4, unchanged.

·        Illinois - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Indiana - 11, unchanged.

·        Iowa - 6, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Kansas - 6, unchanged.

·        Kentucky - 8, unchanged.

·        Louisiana - 8, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Maine - 4, unchanged.

·        Maryland - 10, unchanged.

·        Massachusetts - 11, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Michigan - 16, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Minnesota - 10, unchanged. 

·        Mississippi - 6, unchanged.

·        Missouri - 10, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Montana - 3, unchanged.

·        Nebraska - 5, unchanged.

·        Nevada - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. 

·        New Hampshire - 4, unchanged. 

·        New Jersey - 14, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        New Mexico - 5, unchanged. 

·        New York - 29, a decrease of 2 electoral votes.

·        North Carolina - 15, unchanged.

·        North Dakota - 3, unchanged.

·       Ohio - 18, a decrease of 2 electoral votes.

·        Oklahoma - 7, unchanged.

·        Oregon - 7, unchanged.

·        Pennsylvania - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote.

·        Rhode Island - 4, unchanged.

·        South Carolina - 9, an increase of 1 electoral vote.

·        South Dakota - 3, unchanged.

·        Tennessee - 11, unchanged.

·        Texas - 38, an increase of 4 electoral votes.

·        Utah - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote.

·        Vermont - 3, unchanged.

·        Virginia - 13, unchanged.

·        Washington - 12, an increase of 1 electoral vote.

·        West Virginia - 5, unchanged.

·        Wisconsin - 10, unchanged.

·        Wyoming - 3, unchanged. 

Obama                        242                 

Leaning                         39

TOTAL                                     281

Romney                      180

Leaning                         77

TOTAL                                     257

                                               

Total                                        538

Some caveats:

1) I actually think Obama will win by more, but I've assigned FL, NC, VA, and CO to Romney because they have new registration laws and/or other problems that could adversely affect Blue turnout.

2) Despite the fact that OH also has several anti-Blue possibilities, the polls in Ohio have been consistently favoring Obama. Obviously, based on my mathematical calculations, if OH went Red...so would the presidency...unless some of the red-leaning states went blue.  Can I waltz around the rationale more delicately?

3) I gotta admit: I don't really trust all the machines and all the states' secretaries of state out there overseeing the election process.  I'm beginning to feel like we're a third world country needing outside objective observers watching us.  Oh.  Wait. We're going to HAVE outside objective observers watching us.

4) For those good folk out there who are thinking, 'We survived eight years of dubya; what does it matter if Romney gets in by a Supreme Court mandate or by false totals from a few states?' I reply: not all of us survived eight years of dubya.  Thousands of American and Allied troops died in Iraq and Afghanistan, and possibly hundreds of thousands of civilians did not survive the dubya machinations.  I do lay the blame at Alioto's and Scalia's and Thomas's door.  In addition, we had a horrible recession made worse by the Republican Party's refusal to put the American people ahead of the GOP's political chicanery.  I really don't relish the idea of the Republican party being rewarded for its indefensible inflexibility.  I'm still stewing over the Democrats' apparent choice not to emphasize Mitch McConnell's "Our Number One goal is to make sure Barack Obama is a one-term president" comment. 

Deep down I think Obama will get 300 or more electoral votes.  Frankly, however, I'll be happy with 270.  Best to all of you -- /RPW

# 39 I'm not the only one....

Greetings good folk.  All along, I've maintained that Obama was going to win (and win big).  Now I'm passing along an article by David Rothschild that downplays the significance of national polls this year, in favor of specific state polls.  And, yes, it is possible that Romney might win the popular vote and lose the electoral college vote. Here's Rothschild's article, complete:
-----     -----     -----

One would think that Gallup, Pew, Rasmussen, every sufficiently wealthy news organization and anyone else interested in conducting a poll would be familiar with the basics of the American electoral system. Why they all insist on continuing to waste precious ink on national polls, then, is completely mystifying.

Gallup's latest poll of registered voters reports that former Gov. Mitt Romney and President Barack Obama are tied nationally, 48 to 48 percent. Gallup's latest poll of likely voters, based on a complex set of assumptions about voter turnout, has Romney leading Obama by 5 percentage points, 51 to 46.

These figures are based on a national sample, so they theoretically include voters from Ohio, Florida and Virginia. They also include voters from Wyoming, California, Alabama, Delaware and about 40 other states whose voters could not possibly be any less relevant to the outcome on Nov. 6.

At this stage in the election, like any sufficiently close election, the fate of the candidates rests with fewer than a half-dozen states. The continuing snapshots of national polls are useful for pollsters and academics, who are interested in things like expected vote share or the probability of victory in the national popular vote. Most stakeholders care only about the likelihood of victory in the Electoral College, and a national poll is not very useful at this point.

This is why most prognosticators consider Obama to have a far higher chance of victory than the national polls would suggest. The Signal has Obama at a 65 percent chance of victory, while Nate Silver gives him a 75 percent chance against Romney. A small, demented chorus of observers has recently dinged Silver for this conclusion, citing various gut feelings to the contrary.

[[Odds of Victory]]
Sources: Betfair, Intrade, IEM, HuffPost's Pollster and RealClearPolitics


Any way you slice it, Obama is leading in states that account for well over 270 electoral votes. As we've said a million times before, Obama needs only Ohio, Florida or Virginia to prevent Romney from reaching 270 electoral votes in most scenarios. Romney needs all three.

Romney maintains a slight lead in aggregations of many polls. HuffPost's Pollster listed six new polls on Monday, and Obama led in only one. Romney led in three of these, and two were are tied. Pollster, which has a very transparent method of aggregation, combines all recent polls and has Romney up 47.4 to 47.2. RealClearPolitics, which aggregates polls with a completely opaque method, has Romney up 47.6 to 46.7.

If you are a poll junkie and you need your latest fix, I suggest following the latest polls in Florida, Virginia and Ohio. If you are still obsessing over national polls, I suggest you brush up on the Constitution. Just in case, here's a link. It's free.

David Rothschild has a Ph.D. in applied economics from the Wharton School of Business at the University of Pennsylvania.

# 38 The Halloween Effect of Electronic Voting Machines

Greetings Good Folk -- Halloween could arrive six days later in several states, if electronic voting machines malfunction (accidentally or with intentional help from scurrilous individuals) and create a horror of a mess in the tallying of presidential votes and other races. We could end up with a 2000-style hanging chads, but without the chads or the paper ballots from which to hang.  In fact, we could end up with no chance to recount  in some precincts. This is precisely the kind of problem that could change the outcome of the national election.  I've included below part of an article, from Mark Clayton of The Christian Science Monitor:
-----     -----    -----

Touch-screen electronic voting machines in at least four states pose a risk to the integrity of the 2012 presidential election, according to a Monitor analysis.

In four key battleground states – Pennsylvania, Virginia, Florida, and Colorado – glitches in e-voting machines could produce incorrect or incomplete tallies that would be difficult to detect and all but impossible to correct because the machines have no paper record for officials to go back and check.

While many state officials laud the accuracy of e-voting machines, mechanical and software failures are not a new problem. What makes the risk more serious this year is that polls project a close election, and e-voting problems in any of the four states in question could affect who wins the presidency.

"No matter how unlikely it seems now, there's a chance that this election will be so close that it could be flipped by a single voting machine problem in a single place in any one of those states," says Edward Felten, a professor at Princeton University in New Jersey who has analyzed e-voting machine weaknesses. "To avoid that, it's key to have a record of what the voter saw – and that means having a paper ballot or other paper record."

Paper verification of votes has proved to be a vital backstop to ensure that voting-machine software is not corrupt and that programming errors did not affect the accuracy of electronic vote tallies. Voting machines have at times "lost" thousands of votes or even "flipped" votes from one candidate to another, and total breakdowns are not unheard of.

For example:

• In 2006, some 18,000 votes were electronically "lost" by e-vote systems in a single Florida congressional race with no paper backup or ballots available to review.
• In May 2011, voters in Pennsylvania’s Venango County complained that paperless electronic touch-screen machines were "flipping their choices from one party to another," according to a report by Verified Voting, a nonprofit group in Carlsbad, Calif., that tracks voting machine use nationwide. After an inconclusive audit of election results, the county simply decided to use paper ballots counted by optical scanners in future elections.
• In March, an e-voting system in Florida’s Palm Beach County experienced a "synchronization” problem in a municipal election. The election software attributed votes to the wrong contest and the wrong candidates won. Thankfully, paper ballots existed. After a court-ordered recount, results were changed and two losing candidates were declared winners.

More than 1,800 voting machine problems were reported to election protection hotlines during the 2008 general election, according to Verified Voting. Such election failures mattered far less in 2008 because Barack Obama won by a landslide. But this year, the loser might be likely to demand a recount if the winning margin is small. In states that still use Direct Recording Equipment (DRE) – touch-screen voting equipment that lacks any paper verification – that could be a problem.

"Without a paper trail there's no opportunity to check, so then you just have to rely on faith that the software is functioning properly and capturing votes properly," says Pamela Smith, president of Verified Voting. "Maybe the machine is working OK right now. But if there is a bug or glitch, there's nothing to go back to."

After the controversy over "hanging chads" in Florida in the 2000 election, touch-screen e-voting machines proliferated nationwide as the Help America Vote Act of 2002 helped states pay for new equipment. Most states have since replaced e-systems that lack paper verification with paper ballots counted by optical scanners. While scanners can also fail, the paper ballots are there to be recounted.

But 17 states still use paperless DREs, according to Verified Voting. Among those, four are expected to see election results close enough to potentially demand a recount.

"Most of the country has gone to some sort of paper-based optical or electronic system," says Peter Lichtenheld, vice president of operations for Austin-based Hart InterCivic, one of four major voting machine companies in the US. "In counties that have decided to stay with older direct response equipment [DREs], they've put in people and procedures to make them more secure."

For example, most states now run preelection software tests on the machines to verify that they are counting correctly. The machines are "sealed" against tampering and, increasingly, they are monitored by surveillance cameras even in off-use periods. Memory cards in the machines should retain votes, even in a power failure, but have not always done so.

To critics, however, reliance on electronic methods alone as a backup means that the machines are, in essence, checking themselves. Only a paper document checked by the voter ensures that the vote was recorded correctly and is immune to system failures or even cyberattack.

• In Pennsylvania, 50 of 68 counties have paperless equipment as their standard voting system, Verified Voting data show. Those machines serve some 7 million of about 8.5 million registered voters statewide.
• In Virginia, 127 of 135 counties use paperless DREs, accounting for 3.7 million of the state’s 5 million registered voters, according to Verified Voting.
• Colorado is shifting to mail-in paper ballots, but the transition isn't complete. Jefferson County, the state’s fourth most populous, is using paperless DREs as well as mailed ballots. So, many of its 320,000-plus "active" registered voters will vote on the machines – more than enough to tip a tight race, says Ms. Smith of Verified Voting.
• In Florida, all counties are required by law to have paper backups for their voting machines by 2014. Even so, a small but potentially significant number of disabled voters statewide still will use paperless touch-screen machines this year. Although only a few thousand votes may be cast on those "accessibility" machines, it could still be enough to throw the race if the state's vote tally were to end up as close as it was in the 2000 presidential election, when George W. Bush controversially won by 537 votes.

State officials stand by the machines.
"These DREs have been one of the more reliable pieces of equipment we've had," says Donald Palmer, secretary of Virginia's Board of Elections, the state's most senior election official. "We haven't had any major problems with them."

In fact, Colorado’s Jefferson County recently had to conduct a recount in a congressional race, in which votes cast on paperless DREs were included. Significantly, both candidates accepted the result although there was no paper to confirm that the machines had recorded the votes correctly.

"We think we have the right processes in place to make sure everyone is able to vote and that their votes count," says Andrew Cole, a spokesman for the Colorado Secretary of State's office.

Still, Princeton’s Professor Felten has put all four states on his top 10 states “at risk” of an e-voting meltdown. Among the factors going into the the list is the effectiveness of a state’s vote-audit laws.

California, for example, is lauded because its post-election audits draw statistical comparison between paper totals and voting machine tallies to ensure the machines are accurate. In contrast, Virginia has no post-election audit and limited provisions for a recount in state law in case machine vote-count problems are detected. Similarly, Florida state laws are such that a recount may not be permitted even if a machine is known to have malfunctioned.

"Florida's post-election audit law is absolutely atrocious and does not afford the voters any certainty that their votes have been accurately counted," says Ion Sancho, supervisor of elections in Florida’s Leon County. "Because our laws only allow erroneous totals to be corrected on the basis of fraud, a machine could break down, but if there's no fraud, our laws would still not allow us to correct those erroneous totals."

The small number of voters who will use paperless DREs in the state limit the chances of an e-voting meltdown there, he acknowledges. But it is a concern. He notes that the blatant mistake made by e-voting machines in Palm Beach might have never been corrected had that been a statewide election, since there was no obvious fraud. "State law doesn't require it," he says.

"I'm hopeful," he adds, "that we can get through to 2014 without an election disaster like 2000 and finally get rid of all these [paperless] machines once and for all."

# 37 Rasmussen and RPW, Part Deux (see Post # 36)

RPW’s Projections as of October 25, 2012:

Obama 

Strong                         242                 

Leaning                         33

TOTAL                                     275

Romney 

Strong                                     180

Leaning                         11

TOTAL                                     191

Too Close to Call                      72

                                                ------

Total                                       538

·        Alaska - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 83,299 or 13.3 percent to 710,231 in 2010. 

·        Alabama – 9, unchanged.  I couldn’t get the state’s population change; apparently no one in Alabama can count to numbers in double figures.  omy—did I just write that out loud?

·        Arizona - 11, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,261,385 or 24.6 percent to 6,392,017 in 2010.

·        Arkansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 242,518 or 9.1 percent to 2,915,918 in 2010.

·        California - 55, unchanged. The state's population increased by 3,382,308 or 10 percent to 37,253,956 in 2010.

·        Colorado - 9, unchanged. The state's population increased by 727,935 or 16.9 percent to 5,029,196 in 2010.

·        Connecticut - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 168,532 or 4.9 percent to 3,574,097 in 2010.

·        Delaware - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 114,334 or 14.6 percent to 897,934 in 2010.

·        District of Columbia - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 29,664 or 5.2 percent to 601,723 in 2010.

·        Florida - 29, an increase of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 2,818,932 or 17.6 percent to 18,801,310 in 2010.

·        Georgia - 16, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 1,501,200 or 18.3 percent to 9,687,653 in 2010.

·        Hawaii - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 148,764 or 12.3 percent to 1,360,301 in 2010.

·        Idaho - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 273,629 or 21.1 percent to 1,567,582 in 2010.

·        Illinois - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 411,339 or 3.3 percent to 12,830,632 in 2010.

·        Indiana - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 403,317 or 6.6. percent to 6,483,802 in 2010.

·        Iowa - 6, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 120,031 or 4.1 percent to 3,046,355 in 2010.

·        Kansas - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 164,700 or 6.1 percent to 2,853,118 in 2010.

·        Kentucky - 8, unchanged. The state's population increased by 297,598 or 7.4 percent to 4,339,367 in 2011.

·        Louisiana - 8, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 64,396 or 1.4 percent to 4,533,372 in 2010.

·        Maine - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 53,438 or 4.2 percent to 1,328,361 in 2010.

·        Maryland - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 477,066 or 9 percent to 5,773,552 in 2010.

·        Massachusetts - 11, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 198,532 or 3.1 percent to 6,547,629 in 2010.

·        Michigan - 16, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population fell by 54,804 or 0.6 percent to 9,883,640 in 2010.

·        Minnesota - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 384,446 or 7.8 percent to 5,303,925 in 2010.

·        Mississippi - 6, unchanged. The state's population increased by 122,639 or 4.3 percent to 2,967,297 in 2010.

·        Missouri - 10, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 393,716 or 7 percent to 5,988,927 in 2010.

·        Montana - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 87,220 or 9.7 percent to 989,415 in 2010.

·        Nebraska - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 115,078 or 6.7 percent to 1,826,341 in 2010.

·        Nevada - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 702,294 or 35.1 percent to 2,700,551 in 2010.

·        New Hampshire - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 80,684 6.5 percent to 1,316,470 in 2010.

·        New Jersey - 14, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 377,544 or 4.5 percent to 8,791,894 in 2010.

·        New Mexico - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 240,133 or 13.2 percent to 2,059,179 in 2010.

·        New York - 29, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 401,645 or 2.1 percent to 19,378,102 in 2010.

·        North Carolina - 15, unchanged. The state's population increased by 1,486,170 or 18.5 percent to 9,535,483 in 2010.

·        North Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 30,391 or 4.7 percent to 672,591 in 2010.

·        Ohio - 18, a decrease of 2 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 183,364 or 1.6 percent to 11,536,504 in 2010.

·        Oklahoma - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 300,697 or 8.7 percent to 3,751,351 in 2010.

·        Oregon - 7, unchanged. The state's population increased by 409,675 or 12 percent to 3,831,074 in 2010.

·        Pennsylvania - 20, a decrease of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 421,325 or 3.4 percent to 12,702,379 in 2010.

·        Rhode Island - 4, unchanged. The state's population increased by 4,248 or 0.4 percent to 1,052,567 in 2010.

·        South Carolina - 9, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 613,352 or 15.3 percent to 4,625,364 in 2010.

·        South Dakota - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 59,336 or 7.9 percent to 814,180 in 2010.

·        Tennessee - 11, unchanged. The state's population increased by 656,822 or 11.5 percent to 6,346,105 in 2010.

·        Texas - 38, an increase of 4 electoral votes. The state's population increased by 4,293,741 or 20.6 percent to 25,145,561 in 2010.

·        Utah - 6, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 530,716 or 23.8 percent to 2,763,885 in 2010.

·        Vermont - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 16,914 or 2.8 percent to 625,741 in 2010.

·        Virginia - 13, unchanged. The state's population increased by 922,509 or 13 percent to 8,001,024 in 2010.

·        Washington - 12, an increase of 1 electoral vote. The state's population increased by 830,419 or 14.1 percent to 6,724,540 in 2010.

·        West Virginia - 5, unchanged. The state's population increased by 44,650 or 2.5 percent to 1,852,994 in 2010.

·        Wisconsin - 10, unchanged. The state's population increased by 323,311 or 6 percent to 5,686,986 in 2010.

·        Wyoming - 3, unchanged. The state's population increased by 69,844 or 14.1 percent to 563,626 in 2010.