MT Congressional Redistricting

[Heir of Camelot]

Yes and the current MT-AL absolutely blows for campaigning. The NW and SE corners of Montana are about the same distance apart as driving from SE Montana to Texas, no joke.

I want straight up East-West divide like last time. 2 winnable districts for both sides. No need to get cute.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes and the current MT-AL absolutely blows for campaigning. The NW and SE corners of Montana are about the same distance apart as driving from SE Montana to Texas, no joke.

I want straight up East-West divide like last time. 2 winnable districts for both sides. No need to get cute.

is it just me or does 2018 population estimates make a 2-CD whole-county, good-looking, and CoI-respecting arrangement extremely difficult?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a02d090-0cdd-4c35-87ad-e830652079bc
this is the best I could come up with.

Gallatin, Madison, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Ravalli, Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Lake, Lincoln, Flathead, Glacier in the Western CD.

the rest of the state in the other.

The Western CD has 519,040 people, and the Eastern CD has 522,692.

[Sol]

Yes and the current MT-AL absolutely blows for campaigning. The NW and SE corners of Montana are about the same distance apart as driving from SE Montana to Texas, no joke.

I want straight up East-West divide like last time. 2 winnable districts for both sides. No need to get cute.

is it just me or does 2018 population estimates make a 2-CD whole-county, good-looking, and CoI-respecting arrangement extremely difficult?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a02d090-0cdd-4c35-87ad-e830652079bc
this is the best I could come up with.

Gallatin, Madison, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Ravalli, Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Lake, Lincoln, Flathead, Glacier in the Western CD.

the rest of the state in the other.

The Western CD has 519,040 people, and the Eastern CD has 522,692.

Unfortunately your map splits the Blackfoot Reservation.

When given the choice between communities of interest and counties, one ought to obviously pick the former.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Yes and the current MT-AL absolutely blows for campaigning. The NW and SE corners of Montana are about the same distance apart as driving from SE Montana to Texas, no joke.

I want straight up East-West divide like last time. 2 winnable districts for both sides. No need to get cute.

is it just me or does 2018 population estimates make a 2-CD whole-county, good-looking, and CoI-respecting arrangement extremely difficult?
https://davesredistricting.org/join/1a02d090-0cdd-4c35-87ad-e830652079bc
this is the best I could come up with.

Gallatin, Madison, Beaverhead, Jefferson, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Ravalli, Missoula, Mineral, Sanders, Lake, Lincoln, Flathead, Glacier in the Western CD.

the rest of the state in the other.

The Western CD has 519,040 people, and the Eastern CD has 522,692.

Unfortunately your map splits the Blackfoot Reservation.

When given the choice between communities of interest and counties, one ought to obviously pick the former.

I would not necessarily go that far (i.e. reservations vs counties) insofar as to the question of whether that is some universal rule or not, and stridently disagree with the idea a county is not a community of interest in itself. But it was enough to justify a newfound look at alternatives.
I placed Pondera and Broadwater in the Western CD in exchange for Jefferson County being placed in the Eastern CD. Western CD's population is 522,792; East is 518,940.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

https://davesredistricting.org/join/d87d9714-4f4f-4010-be50-15895982f9dc
bonus map: GOPmander

Southern CD: Big Horn, Yellowstone, Musselshell, Carbon, Stillwater, Golden Valley, Sweet Grass, Park, Meagher, Gallatin, Broadwater, Madison, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Beaverhead, Silver Bow, Deer Lodge, Powell, Granite, Ravalli (521,521)
Northern CD: the rest of the state (520,211)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/81d77d30-5a89-48c9-9543-495fa0063124
extra bonus map: Dmander
Southwest CD: Wheatland, Park, Meagher, Gallatin, Cascade, Broadwater, Madison, Jefferson, Lewis and Clark, Lewis and Clark, Beaverhead, Silver Bow, Powell, Granite, Ravalli, Missoula (521,067)
Northeast CD: the rest of the state (520,665)

should be noted that these would both be awful to put in practice, regardless of the wider electoral impact. But it is interesting to see what a map optimized purely for partisan performance would look like here.

[bagelman]

Not a redistricting thread when you're (potentially) finally getting that second seat you should've gotten back already.

MT had two districts from 1913-1993, although until 1919 it elected two congressmen at-large. The first district was in the west, the second in the east. When the seats were forced to combine in 1992, Pat Williams (D) defeated the eastern Ron Marlenee (R) 50.5-47. Both had been in Congress since the late 1970s.

Williams would retire before 1996, and the Republicans won the seat 52-43 in that election. The seat has been Republican held since, now by schoolyard bully Greg Gianforte. The last two elections have been the most competitive, but Gianforte has managed to win as a result of the state's partisan lean.

I've whipped up a nonpartisan map that restores what once was before the 1990s:

https://davesredistricting.org/join/14f111af-367c-493b-9cf9-5fee79a33077

[America Needs a 13-6 Progressive SCOTUS]

Best case scenario for Dems is a District Trump won by about 6.5%. Still Lean R.

[Oryxslayer]

I guess it was missing from the Master thread, so I won't fault you for creating a second thread. Though I will suggest you delete this short thread and continue your discussion there.

https://talkelections.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=368001.0

[Badger]

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.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[SevenEleven]

Why would California lose a district and Montana gain one?

[lfromnj]

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.

[Oryxslayer]

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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?

[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.

[Skill and Chance]

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. 

[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!

[Sol]

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?

[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.

[lfromnj]

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?

[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.

[Oryxslayer]

This is not the place to discuss the positives and negatives of representative systems - every system has both. This is Montana. Also:

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.  

Nah OMOV is fairly absolute. When states abuse their MOE's it gets people even more angry than gerrymandering - see NY legislature. This is why we gerrymander rather than do the UK thing where seats are 'surprisingly' disproportionate in their voter totals. I assume when you say "strict numbers" you mean VAP and minority districts, which are an entirely separate and eternally adjusting issue.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.