MT Congressional Redistricting

[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.

[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.

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.

[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.

[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.

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.

In 2010 the only small states overrepresented (that is, their total population is smaller than the size of a Congressional District) were North Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming. Beyond that every state's representation was dependent on whether they were lucky or unlucky on rounding.
If you merged the two Dakotas the one mega-state would still have two congressional districts. If you merged Idaho, Wyoming and Montana the resulting state would still have four congressional districts (and would also still gain a fifth district in 2020). Merging small states will make the senate more equal, but it won't change anything in the House.

[Heir of Camelot]

Western MT will go blue for a good Dem Congressional candidate even though it's Tossup for Presidential elections.

Quist, Tester and Bullock have all won Western MT recently.

It will be interesting to see how they draw it up.

[lfromnj]

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.

Again no the house has some problems with distribution but both MT and RI have a million people but they have 1 and 2 representatives due to a slight difference.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

Would y'all say a county split is inevitable this time around?

[Oryxslayer]

Would y'all say a county split is inevitable this time around?

Depends. There are ways to keep counties whole by first trading counties from the west to the east, and then taking in a few smaller counties from the east and topping off the west. However, if the mappers decide to treat the traditional east-west divide as unshakable, then a county cut is necessary for the east to reach pop equity.

[S019]

I drew this east-west split relatively clean map, with no county splits.

https://davesredistricting.org/join/6c88c10e-54fa-4f4c-b590-ae81490aa98b

[TML]

Would y'all say a county split is inevitable this time around?

Here's a way to avoid splitting any counties while making both districts contiguous and keeping the difference in population between the two districts under 1000:

District 1: Lincoln, Flathead, Glacier, Toole, Liberty, Hill, Pondera, Teton, Sanders, Lake, Mineral, Missoula, Powell, Lewis and Clark, Ravalli, Granite, Deer Lodge, Silver Bow, Jefferson, Beaverhead, Madison

District 2: Blaine, Phillips, Valley, Daniels, Sheridan, Roosevelt, Richland, Dawson, McCone, Wibaux, Prairie, Garfield, Petroleum, Fergus, Chouteau, Judith Basin, Cascade, Meagher, Broadwater, Gallatin, Park, Sweet Grass, Wheatland, Golden Valley, Stillwater, Carbon, Big Horn, Powder River, Carter, Fallon, Custer, Rosebud, Treasure, Yellowstone, Musselshell

[It’s so Joever]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

[S019]

The west Montana seat will probably more often than not vote D due to MT's downballot quirkiness. It's Lean R on the presidential level, but surely not out of reach for PresiDem in a landslide victory..

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

The west Montana seat will probably more often than not vote D due to MT's downballot quirkiness. It's Lean R on the presidential level, but surely not out of reach for PresiDem in a landslide victory..

this, pretty much.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, but also yes.

MT's western district, as a blue collar, rural white grouping, is shifting rightwards, but still has a significant amount of Democratic backbone. Still, politics changes. My prediction is that it is still wave territory in 2022-2026, but by 2030 is probably Safe R.

Under, say, this map for instance, (pop deviation of 5), my point is made very clear.



While Tester still won this district by 8.5 in 2018, and Obama actually won it in 08, it was also double digits for Trump and 90% white, and in context of its past partisanship even a number like Tester's starts looking a lot less impressive. If, as some posters on this forum certainly believe, we will see 20-25 point swings in districts like TX-26 between now and 2030, is it really so hard to believe that MT-01 here swings another 10 points to the right and becomes R Presidential +24 and R local +1.5 or something?

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

It's not even "the college towns" -- the college towns are trending rightwards too!

[It’s so Joever]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

Obviously, there is a difference between a state where a favorite son US Senator got 6% of the vote and one where you saw normal two party swings. But, ok -- if you want to look 2012 too, every county both swung and trended rightwards.

[OBD]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

Obviously, there is a difference between a state where a favorite son US Senator got 6% of the vote and one where you saw normal two party swings. But, ok -- if you want to look 2012 too, every county both swung and trended rightwards.

Montana has a well-documented trend of both being elastic and swinging against the incumbent party, so unlike Texas/Arizona, it's very unclear if it's actually trending to the right. Things might get more clear after 2020.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

How is Western Montana trending?
I know some of the mining towns are clearly going one way while college towns are going the other, but which one has more sway?

Every county but Gallatin both swung and trended right between 2012 and 2016.

One election does not constitute a long term trend. Otherwise we may as well argue Vermont is going to eventually become a swing state.

Obviously, there is a difference between a state where a favorite son US Senator got 6% of the vote and one where you saw normal two party swings. But, ok -- if you want to look 2012 too, every county both swung and trended rightwards.

Montana has a well-documented trend of both being elastic and swinging against the incumbent party, so unlike Texas/Arizona, it's very unclear if it's actually trending to the right. Things might get more clear after 2020.

Texas/Arizona -- trended leftwards for one election after trending rightwards previously, in large part due to specific elected President

MT -- trending rightwards several elections in a row, went from being wave win in 90s to wave loss in 08, +20 for Trump, in line with national demographics for right trending places

But sure.

[S019]

No, but also yes.

MT's western district, as a blue collar, rural white grouping, is shifting rightwards, but still has a significant amount of Democratic backbone. Still, politics changes. My prediction is that it is still wave territory in 2022-2026, but by 2030 is probably Safe R.

Under, say, this map for instance, (pop deviation of 5), my point is made very clear.



While Tester still won this district by 8.5 in 2018, and Obama actually won it in 08, it was also double digits for Trump and 90% white, and in context of its past partisanship even a number like Tester's starts looking a lot less impressive. If, as some posters on this forum certainly believe, we will see 20-25 point swings in districts like TX-26 between now and 2030, is it really so hard to believe that MT-01 here swings another 10 points to the right and becomes R Presidential +24 and R local +1.5 or something?

You clearly aren't aware how elastic MT is down ballot.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

No, but also yes.

MT's western district, as a blue collar, rural white grouping, is shifting rightwards, but still has a significant amount of Democratic backbone. Still, politics changes. My prediction is that it is still wave territory in 2022-2026, but by 2030 is probably Safe R.

Under, say, this map for instance, (pop deviation of 5), my point is made very clear.



While Tester still won this district by 8.5 in 2018, and Obama actually won it in 08, it was also double digits for Trump and 90% white, and in context of its past partisanship even a number like Tester's starts looking a lot less impressive. If, as some posters on this forum certainly believe, we will see 20-25 point swings in districts like TX-26 between now and 2030, is it really so hard to believe that MT-01 here swings another 10 points to the right and becomes R Presidential +24 and R local +1.5 or something?

You clearly aren't aware how elastic MT is down ballot.

I am, and referenced that in my post. There's a reason Tester won by just 3 in 2018, while Baucus won by 31 18 years ago.

[Heir of Camelot]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

Even Tester won by a smaller margin in W MT than Baucus did statewide. But sure, it was just Hillary. Oh, and Obama. Oh, and every D politician who keeps winning by smaller and smaller margins, when they win at all. Yep. So long as Dems keep nominating  populists who make you fall in love with their big bad helicopter smoke ads like daddy Bullock instead of muh shrill neoliberals like that evil, election losing Hillary (who you thought was great until Nov 6), rural white westerners will be glad to vote for abortion on demand and giving up their healthcare systems to washington bureaucrats.

[Libertas Vel Mors]

Western Montana is not trending rightwards. Hillary was just a horrible fit here and all the Berniecrats sat out the general (the disdain for Hillary was palpable and Bernie dominated the primary). Let's see the Biden numbers before we call anything a trend. I bet Biden wins it.

Bozeman is shifting leftwards quickly, as is Whitefish. Missoula is basically Portland and it will dominate the Western half the way Billings will dominate the East.

Furthermore, Butte is solidly D, as is Dear Lodge and West Yellowstone and Livingston (depending on how they draw it). Columbia Falls is drifting that way (It has chosen Democrat Zac Perry the last 2 cycles). Whitefish went 70% D for Dave Fern in the last election. Quist even won Kalispell and made it interesting in Hamilton (the two red Hamlets). Shrill Neo Liberals could still lose it of course but guys like Tester, Bullock, Quist will win it all day.

"mIsSoUlA iS bAsIcAlLy pOrTlAnD"

Missoula: Obama +17.8, Clinton +15.4, less than 65,000 total votes, 90% non-Hispanic white, median family income $45,000

Portland: Obama +54.7, Clinton +56.3, 400,000 voting residents, 66% non-Hispanic white, median income $63,000 (none of this includes suburbs either lol, which just add to the disparity)

While I get the compulsion to hope that your state is flipping to your party, hear me out from a Californian Republican (Ex) to a Montana Democrat: sometimes it just ain't so.