Being a math nerd, I looked at the article and wondered how switching of seats would impact the Presidential Election. Had the suggested apportionment of seats been in effect in 2000, Bush would have gained a net nine Electoral votes, while in 2004 he would gained a net 16 electoral votes over his 2000 performance. (Keep in mind the 2000 election was held before the last reapportionment, so it’s showing a double effect.) Similarly, in 1996, Bob Dole would have gained 7 electoral votes and Bush the Elder would have gained 10 electoral votes in 1992.
This shows that, as a general rule, population trends are favoring the GOP in the Electoral College. This doesn’t mean the Electoral College is a lock, though. Bill Clinton showed in 1992 and 1996 that the so-called “Solid South” can be broken up if the Democrats run a candidate those voters find appealing. In addition, the GOP may have lost Ohio for the foreseeable future given the Ohio GOP’s record of corruption and incompetence. This loss alone would more than offset the GOP’s growth in strength due to reapportionment. So while the national trend is good for Republicans, local trends do not bode as well.