MT Congressional Redistricting

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

[SevenEleven]

How feasible is it to have the Western District contain both Park and Cascade counties, presumably after dumping Flathead County? For example, could a couple of the rural Republican counties south of Helena and Great Falls he carved out into the eastern district to even out the population closely enough? Open to any suggestions here.

Although Glacier County does provide a substantial vote margin for Democrats despite its relatively small population, it's just not worth it to Democrats keeping it in the Western District as that also means keeping Flathead, which is the major Republican vote sink in Western Montana.

Here are the (present) facts:

-Using the natural 'fall line' between east and west that goes from Flathead to Gallatin leaves the eastern district ~61K pop short under 2018 data.
-Any of the three major 'cities' can be taken to correct for the deviation. In this scenario, we take Flathead and now the western district needs to balance out the pop between the seats.
-Cascade is only 10K less than Flathead. Adding it and Glacier would in effect bring us back to where we started, since the two are approximately equal to Glacier. We are once again left with an overpopulated western seat.
-Since this is looking like a Dem seat, we will start removing GOP rurals to correct for the pop. Lincoln, Sanders, and Mineral are connected by road to Flathead, and then to the rest of the east - removing them brings us to a 26K imbalance. Removing Jefferson and Broadwater in the south brings us to 8K imbalance. Those two are connected to the east by road, though removing them from the west makes the road situation a bit more complicated.
-We have now carved out everything that can be done at the county level. The remaining 8K needs to come from a cut into Cascade or Lake. What we are left with is a district that voted Trump by 6% but supported the statewide Dems by over 15%. A clear map that benefits the democrats.

That's interesting.  That would be within +/- 10% population variation between the 2 CDs.  Could the commission just draw that map and defend it to the courts on COI grounds.  SCOTUS allowed a +/- 1% variation on the WV 2011 map and are trending away from strict numerical rules in redistricting cases anyway. 

COI is a bullsh**t standard used to dilute political power and weaken OMOV standards. Sounds fitting for the current Court, absolutely.

[SevenEleven]

We must demand fair appoirtionment!

Wyoming population times 50 subtracted from total population, divide by 385 and give additional districts based on that!

[SevenEleven]

How feasible is it to have the Western District contain both Park and Cascade counties, presumably after dumping Flathead County? For example, could a couple of the rural Republican counties south of Helena and Great Falls he carved out into the eastern district to even out the population closely enough? Open to any suggestions here.

Although Glacier County does provide a substantial vote margin for Democrats despite its relatively small population, it's just not worth it to Democrats keeping it in the Western District as that also means keeping Flathead, which is the major Republican vote sink in Western Montana.

Here are the (present) facts:

-Using the natural 'fall line' between east and west that goes from Flathead to Gallatin leaves the eastern district ~61K pop short under 2018 data.
-Any of the three major 'cities' can be taken to correct for the deviation. In this scenario, we take Flathead and now the western district needs to balance out the pop between the seats.
-Cascade is only 10K less than Flathead. Adding it and Glacier would in effect bring us back to where we started, since the two are approximately equal to Glacier. We are once again left with an overpopulated western seat.
-Since this is looking like a Dem seat, we will start removing GOP rurals to correct for the pop. Lincoln, Sanders, and Mineral are connected by road to Flathead, and then to the rest of the east - removing them brings us to a 26K imbalance. Removing Jefferson and Broadwater in the south brings us to 8K imbalance. Those two are connected to the east by road, though removing them from the west makes the road situation a bit more complicated.
-We have now carved out everything that can be done at the county level. The remaining 8K needs to come from a cut into Cascade or Lake. What we are left with is a district that voted Trump by 6% but supported the statewide Dems by over 15%. A clear map that benefits the democrats.

That's interesting.  That would be within +/- 10% population variation between the 2 CDs.  Could the commission just draw that map and defend it to the courts on COI grounds.  SCOTUS allowed a +/- 1% variation on the WV 2011 map and are trending away from strict numerical rules in redistricting cases anyway.  

COI is a bullsh**t standard used to dilute political power and weaken OMOV standards. Sounds fitting for the current Court, absolutely.

I take it you support PR then?

Generally, yes. I also support expanding the House and something absolutely has to be done with the mess in the Senate.

There's value in having location-based representation but packing similar interests into one district means less representatives are accountable to these COIs, whatever they may be.

For example, grouping coastal cities together can create a legitimate community of interest.

Packing all the black voters in Los Angeles in a single non-black majority district is not a community of interest. Grouping heavily agrarian areas or resort areas can also be a dilution of influence.

[SevenEleven]

How feasible is it to have the Western District contain both Park and Cascade counties, presumably after dumping Flathead County? For example, could a couple of the rural Republican counties south of Helena and Great Falls he carved out into the eastern district to even out the population closely enough? Open to any suggestions here.

Although Glacier County does provide a substantial vote margin for Democrats despite its relatively small population, it's just not worth it to Democrats keeping it in the Western District as that also means keeping Flathead, which is the major Republican vote sink in Western Montana.

Here are the (present) facts:

-Using the natural 'fall line' between east and west that goes from Flathead to Gallatin leaves the eastern district ~61K pop short under 2018 data.
-Any of the three major 'cities' can be taken to correct for the deviation. In this scenario, we take Flathead and now the western district needs to balance out the pop between the seats.
-Cascade is only 10K less than Flathead. Adding it and Glacier would in effect bring us back to where we started, since the two are approximately equal to Glacier. We are once again left with an overpopulated western seat.
-Since this is looking like a Dem seat, we will start removing GOP rurals to correct for the pop. Lincoln, Sanders, and Mineral are connected by road to Flathead, and then to the rest of the east - removing them brings us to a 26K imbalance. Removing Jefferson and Broadwater in the south brings us to 8K imbalance. Those two are connected to the east by road, though removing them from the west makes the road situation a bit more complicated.
-We have now carved out everything that can be done at the county level. The remaining 8K needs to come from a cut into Cascade or Lake. What we are left with is a district that voted Trump by 6% but supported the statewide Dems by over 15%. A clear map that benefits the democrats.

That's interesting.  That would be within +/- 10% population variation between the 2 CDs.  Could the commission just draw that map and defend it to the courts on COI grounds.  SCOTUS allowed a +/- 1% variation on the WV 2011 map and are trending away from strict numerical rules in redistricting cases anyway.  

COI is a bullsh**t standard used to dilute political power and weaken OMOV standards. Sounds fitting for the current Court, absolutely.

I take it you support PR then?

Generally, yes. I also support expanding the House and something absolutely has to be done with the mess in the Senate.

There's value in having location-based representation but packing similar interests into one district means less representatives are accountable to these COIs, whatever they may be.

For example, grouping coastal cities together can create a legitimate community of interest.

Packing all the black voters in Los Angeles in a single non-black majority district is not a community of interest. Grouping heavily agrarian areas or resort areas can also be a dilution of influence.

So because Democrat voters largely self pack into large cities and vote 90% D , Communities aren't supposed to be represented?

That has absolutely nothing to do with what I said, in any way.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

I didn't say anything about being white.

I don't understand how you as a Californian can stand by and watch other people in this country be told that they deserve more representation and political power than you.

The 5th largest economy, as strong and diverse of any nation of equal population, contributing far more to the country than we get back, and we barely get a say. DC contributes more tax dollars per capita than any other administrative division and they get jack sh**t. When they were predominately a white populace at least they received electoral votes. They barely even get to govern themselves.

Why are Republicans so fixated on race and ethnicity? It's tiresome.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

I didn't say anything about being white.

I don't understand how you as a Californian can stand by and watch other people in this country be told that they deserve more representation and political power than you.

The 5th largest economy, as strong and diverse of any nation of equal population, contributing far more to the country than we get back, and we barely get a say. DC contributes more tax dollars per capita than any other administrative division and they get jack sh**t. When they were predominately a white populace at least they received electoral votes. They barely even get to govern themselves.

Literally is the head of the Federal government and gets hundreds of thousands of government jobs in the region.
>nothing.

So the people who live and work in DC don't deserve representation because a few people who don't live in Virginia or Maryland might have good paying jobs, despite widespread poverty in the city?

DC deserves to be controlled by a federal government that it doesn't even get to send a voice to? You really suck at being a libertarian.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

I didn't say anything about being white.

I don't understand how you as a Californian can stand by and watch other people in this country be told that they deserve more representation and political power than you.

The 5th largest economy, as strong and diverse of any nation of equal population, contributing far more to the country than we get back, and we barely get a say. DC contributes more tax dollars per capita than any other administrative division and they get jack sh**t. When they were predominately a white populace at least they received electoral votes. They barely even get to govern themselves.

Literally is the head of the Federal government and gets hundreds of thousands of government jobs in the region.
>nothing.

So the people who live and work in DC don't deserve representation because a few people who don't live in Virginia or Maryland might have good paying jobs, despite widespread poverty in the city?

DC deserves to be controlled by a federal government that it doesn't even get to send a voice to? You really suck at being a libertarian.

I didn't say here that I was anti DC voting rights, I would prefer a retro cession to Maryland to give it its congressional district but its absurd to say that DC citizens don't get a bang for the tax money they pay, if DC isn't retro-ceded I would prefer it had more control over its own city rules such as legal weed etc.

DC doesn't want to be part of Maryland and Maryland doesn't want DC. Why are you so opposed to self-determination? I can understand you not believing in democracy as a libertarian but actively imposing something like this is pretty reprehensible and tyrannical.

Most people in DC are working class people. It's not some blob of federal pork. They go to school, they work in grocery stores and restaurants, they work in airports and drive buses. And you want to tell me that because a few fat cat think tanks coexist there that they should be counting their blessings. Yikes.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

So incredibly racist.

I didn't say anything about race. Nice try, though.

Btw, it's your party not supporting DC statehood that is racist.

Bullsh**t.

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

Because it was on the border for the 53rd seat and its growth rate this decade has been slightly slower than the US as a whole which matters a lot when it comes to 53 seats.

And California, being one of the largest states in the nation, has a disproportionate effect on that growth. The larger you are, the harder a state has to work to hold onto it's seats. There is a reason why reapportionment last century saw the Midwest/Mid-Atlantic drop tons of seats each decade.

I have a .02 difference in favor of Montana right now but it's pretty stupid that more people in California lose representation than people in Montana gain.

Montana voters are the best though, can you imagine those Trump-Gianforte-Tester voters determining control of the US senate in 2020?

No, I'd rather imagine DC getting actual representation. Montana does not deserve two congressional districts for their tiny, homogenous population. What a farce.

Why tf is it an issue if Montana is homogenous? Do their being white invalidate them from proper representation?

I didn't say anything about being white.

I don't understand how you as a Californian can stand by and watch other people in this country be told that they deserve more representation and political power than you.

The 5th largest economy, as strong and diverse of any nation of equal population, contributing far more to the country than we get back, and we barely get a say. DC contributes more tax dollars per capita than any other administrative division and they get jack sh**t. When they were predominately a white populace at least they received electoral votes. They barely even get to govern themselves.

Why are Republicans so fixated on race and ethnicity? It's tiresome.

What makes California inherently more deserving of a Congressional District than Montana? Montana is growing faster than the nation, missed out on a 2nd district by only a few thousand people in 2010, and on current estimates is mathematically entitled to a 2nd district. Meanwhile California is growing slower than the nation and barely held its 53rd district in 2010 on a favourable rounding.

California's 53rd district gives a voice to nearly 800,000 Americans, whereas Montana's 2nd district gives a voice to less than 600,000. You're depriving nearly 800,000 people of a voice for 300,000 people in Montana (their population minus the Californians who lose representation). Who the hell cares about growth rates?

[SevenEleven]

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

There is more to diversity than just race. Montana doesn't have Hollywood, a tech industry, wineries, theme parks, beaches, a diverse terrain, as diverse of ecosystems, among many other things.

They already have an outsized voice in the Senate. The people of California deserve to be properly represented.

[SevenEleven]

One could just see the switch as RI 2 for MT 2 aka a lean/Likely D for a lean/Likely R, I would support an increase in the house size anyway upto 700.

I don't care about the political party who might win a seat, I care that people are represented fairly. And giving less than 600,000 people a seat instead of nearly 800,000 Californians is completely unfair.

[SevenEleven]

One could just see the switch as RI 2 for MT 2 aka a lean/Likely D for a lean/Likely R, I would support an increase in the house size anyway upto 700.

I don't care about the political party who might win a seat, I care that people are represented fairly. And giving less than 600,000 people a seat instead of nearly 800,000 Californians is completely unfair.

Well I did say Rhode island loses a seat, and Montana just overtook RI in population 2 years ago so if you really care just say that RI loses a seat and MT gains a seat.

Neither of them deserve a seat over California considering how small they are.

[SevenEleven]

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

There is more to diversity than just race. Montana doesn't have Hollywood, a tech industry, wineries, theme parks, beaches, a diverse terrain, as diverse of ecosystems, among many other things.

They already have an outsized voice in the Senate. The people of California deserve to be properly represented.

Bullsh**t. That's not what words mean. You said that Montana didn't deserve a seat because it was homogenous and California was diverse. There is no mistaking your meaning for anything other then what it is.

No, I said that Montana doesn't deserve a seat because we are talking about taking representation from 800,000 people to give it to 600,000 people.

[SevenEleven]

You're literally repeatedly bringing up race. Why is it important that California is diverse? Why does it matter that Montana is not?

There is more to diversity than just race. Montana doesn't have Hollywood, a tech industry, wineries, theme parks, beaches, a diverse terrain, as diverse of ecosystems, among many other things.

They already have an outsized voice in the Senate. The people of California deserve to be properly represented.

Bullsh**t. That's not what words mean. You said that Montana didn't deserve a seat because it was homogenous and California was diverse. There is no mistaking your meaning for anything other then what it is.

No, I said that Montana doesn't deserve a seat because we are talking about taking representation from 800,000 people to give it to 600,000 people.

Montana gets a second seat because two districts of 600k are more representative and closer to the average district size than one district of 1.2 million

No, because the average district size used doesn't control for the default district a state gets no matter what. It's not more representative. You have more people losing representation than gaining it in this case.

[SevenEleven]

Tiny (there aren't enough people to necessitate greater representation)

Homogenous (this tiny population is more easily represented than California's more diverse interests)

How is this hard for you?

[SevenEleven]

Tiny (there aren't enough people to necessitate greater representation)

Homogenous (this tiny population is more easily represented than California's more diverse interests)

How is this hard for you?

Montana's second district isn't explicitly being gained at the expense of California though. On the 2019 Estimates Montana's 2nd district was being gained at the expense of Alabama's 7th district. California is growing slower than the nation and got a favourable rounding in 2010. If anything California is losing a district to Texas and Florida, not Montana.

Texas' projected districts are worth 763,000 residents, so I'm gonna say that Texas deserves it's representation (38)

[SevenEleven]

California's 53rd district gives a voice to nearly 800,000 Americans, whereas Montana's 2nd district gives a voice to less than 600,000. You're depriving nearly 800,000 people of a voice for 300,000 people in Montana (their population minus the Californians who lose representation). Who the hell cares about growth rates?

California is entitled to as many districts as is proportional to its share of the national population. As California is growing slower than average, its share of the national population is shrinking. That means California's share of the seats in congress likewise shrinks.
Every US state gets as many seats in the House of Representatives as is mathematically proportionate to their share of the total population. Just because California is the biggest state does not make them entitled to more seats in the House than their fair share.

That's not true at all. If Wyoming has less than 600,000 people and California has districts nearing 800,000 people, that is not equal representation based on population.

[SevenEleven]

California's 53rd district gives a voice to nearly 800,000 Americans, whereas Montana's 2nd district gives a voice to less than 600,000. You're depriving nearly 800,000 people of a voice for 300,000 people in Montana (their population minus the Californians who lose representation). Who the hell cares about growth rates?

California is entitled to as many districts as is proportional to its share of the national population. As California is growing slower than average, its share of the national population is shrinking. That means California's share of the seats in congress likewise shrinks.
Every US state gets as many seats in the House of Representatives as is mathematically proportionate to their share of the total population. Just because California is the biggest state does not make them entitled to more seats in the House than their fair share.

That's not true at all. If Wyoming has less than 600,000 people and California has districts nearing 800,000 people, that is not equal representation based on population.

Every state gets as many districts as it is mathematically entitled to within the constraints of districts being unable to cross state lines. Thus some states get lucky on rounding and some states get unlucky on rounding and the small states either have very small districts (WY with 600k, RI with 550k) or very big districts (MT with 1 million, ID with 800k) depending on whether they're lucky on unlucky on rounding.
California's districts in 2010 were 710k in population. In 2019 the average is 745k in population. In 2020 the difference will be between 53 seats of 750k and 52 seats of 765k.

The number is skewed by the presence of over-represented small states. That's something that would be easy to fix but instead I see people saying that larger states should just resign themselves to being perpetually underrepresented in both houses of Congress.