MT Congressional Redistricting

[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.

[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.

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?

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[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?

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

https://osc.state.ny.us/reports/budget/2015/fed_budget_fy2013.pdf

Go to page 24, DC gets way more funding than literally anywhere including MS and NM and VA. Even if all this money doesn't directly go to the Working class it still absolutely artificially prop's up DC's economy and their tax money is not being wasted against them.

[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.

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.

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

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

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.

[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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

[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.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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

[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.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

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.

No, you said:

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]

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?

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.

[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)

[AustralianSwingVoter]

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.