On the other hand, even if you based your projections on the 2010 census — “which was by all accounts a pretty good census,” he said — California might still be on track to lose.

As far as we know, California, unlike, say, West Virginia, hasn’t actually lost residents. The state’s still growing a little. Why are we on track to lose a seat?

“It’s a zero-sum game,” Mr. McGhee said. “So your state can grow — California has grown in population — but not grow enough compared to other states and lose out as a result.”

It wasn’t always this way, he said. For much of American history, seats were added without a limit.

“So it was like, ‘You get a seat, and you get a seat!’” Mr. McGhee said.

That Oprah-like approach continued until 1911, when the number was capped at 435. Still, California kept growing, which meant that the state continued to gain seats, even as others lost them.

But in 2011, the state’s 53 representatives stayed flat for the first time.

Mr. McGhee said that, relatively speaking, there most likely will be little reshuffling this time around, since population growth at the national level has slowed. But California is still likely at risk.

So, say the census goes perfectly and California still loses a seat. What happens then?

The census always takes place during years ending in zero. And redistricting, the process of deciding how to draw the boundaries of all legislative districts, happens the year after that — regardless of whether the number of seats has changed.