Fact check: How did the 2020 census affect the number of electoral votes per state?

1. Summary of the results

The 2020 census resulted in significant changes to electoral vote distribution across states, with a clear pattern of population shifts from traditional industrial states to Sun Belt states. Texas gained two electoral votes, making it the biggest winner from the reapportionment ^[1]. Five states each gained one electoral vote: Colorado, Florida, Montana, North Carolina, and Oregon ^[1].

Seven states lost one electoral vote each: California, Illinois, Michigan, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia ^[1]. This redistribution reflects the ongoing demographic trend of Americans moving from the Rust Belt and Northeast to the South and West.

The new electoral vote allocation became effective for the 2024 and 2028 presidential elections ^[2]. Since each state's electoral votes are tied to its total number of congressional seats (House representatives plus two senators), changes in House apportionment directly impact Electoral College mathematics ^[3].

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal important context about future electoral implications beyond 2020. Population trends suggest even more dramatic changes ahead, with projections showing the South could gain nine additional seats after the 2030 census, potentially affecting Electoral College calculations starting with the 2032 election ^[4].

The sources don't discuss the political implications of these changes or how they might benefit different parties. States that gained electoral votes (Texas, Florida, North Carolina) have generally trended Republican or become competitive swing states, while several states that lost votes (California, New York, Illinois) are traditionally Democratic strongholds. This shift could have significant ramifications for presidential campaign strategies and resource allocation.

Additionally, the analyses don't address the underlying causes of population shifts that drove these changes, such as economic opportunities, cost of living differences, or policy preferences that might influence interstate migration patterns.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question itself contains no apparent misinformation or bias - it's a straightforward factual inquiry about the 2020 census impact on electoral votes. However, the question's framing is somewhat incomplete as it doesn't acknowledge that this was part of the constitutionally mandated decennial reapportionment process that occurs after every census.

The question also doesn't specify the timeframe for when these changes took effect, which could lead to confusion about whether the changes applied to the 2020 election (they did not) or future elections (they apply to 2024 and 2028) ^[2].