MT Congressional Redistricting

[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.

[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?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/DannyTenenbaum/status/1387169717090066432?s=20 lmfao

https://twitter.com/MTGOP/status/1387185931552116739

The MT GOP is claiming the dems made it

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/collapsible_b/status/1388221962187587589

If anyone is wondering why the Billings to Kalispell district is bad from a "good government" point of view.

Obviously not every district can be "ideal" or anything but in a 2 district state its fairly simple to decide. In a larger state I can definitely see sacrifices being made to protect the rest of the map such as how Wisconsin can't really keep the Fox River valley together despite it being a very nice COI that fits because it would really screw up the rest of the map big time.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/collapsible_b/status/1388221962187587589

If anyone is wondering why the Billings to Kalispell district is bad from a "good government" point of view.

Given how the commission was rigged AZ style, that's probably what we are going to get

Not denying that, just explaining to atlas why its probably a bad map.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/collapsible_b/status/1388221962187587589

If anyone is wondering why the Billings to Kalispell district is bad from a "good government" point of view.

Given how the commission was rigged AZ style, that's probably what we are going to get

Not denying that, just explaining to atlas why its probably a bad map.

You have to break up the mountains at some point anyway, there's too much population in the west.   Plus "following the mountains" as they're suggesting breaks up Native reservations.

No it doesn't really break up any reservations. Flathead does not include the Blackfeet native reservation. And yes you do have to break up the mountains but clearly there are more relatively flatter areas near Bozeman/Helena. Kalispell/Whitehead is in the core of the mountain region.There are areas in Flathead which have like 12% native bordering the reservation but its like 42 Native Americans who live like a whole hour away.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/collapsible_b/status/1388221962187587589

If anyone is wondering why the Billings to Kalispell district is bad from a "good government" point of view.

Given how the commission was rigged AZ style, that's probably what we are going to get

Not denying that, just explaining to atlas why its probably a bad map.

You have to break up the mountains at some point anyway, there's too much population in the west.   Plus "following the mountains" as they're suggesting breaks up Native reservations.

No it doesn't really break up any reservations. Flathead does not include the Blackfeet native reservation. And yes you do have to break up the mountains but clearly there are more relatively flatter areas near Bozeman/Helena. Kalispell/Whitehead is in the core of the mountain region.There are areas in Flathead which have like 12% native bordering the reservation but its like 42 Native Americans who live like a whole hour away.

 To go on further your map actually splits the Flathead reservation slightly as it goes into Missoula County a bit at least looking at this map. Although the Flathead reservation is more integrated than other reservations which is interesting.
http://opi.mt.gov/Educators/Teaching-Learning/Indian-Education-for-All/Indian-Education-General-Information

Easy enough fix but that then breaks the rule of no county splits if you want to defend the map on that ground. Not that 1 county split is unreasonable.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/collapsible_b/status/1388221962187587589

If anyone is wondering why the Billings to Kalispell district is bad from a "good government" point of view.

Given how the commission was rigged AZ style, that's probably what we are going to get

Not denying that, just explaining to atlas why its probably a bad map.

You have to break up the mountains at some point anyway, there's too much population in the west.   Plus "following the mountains" as they're suggesting breaks up Native reservations.

No it doesn't really break up any reservations. Flathead does not include the Blackfeet native reservation. And yes you do have to break up the mountains but clearly there are more relatively flatter areas near Bozeman/Helena. Kalispell/Whitehead is in the core of the mountain region.There are areas in Flathead which have like 12% native bordering the reservation but its like 42 Native Americans who live like a whole hour away.

 To go on further your map actually splits the Flathead reservation slightly as it goes into Missoula County a bit at least looking at this map. Although the Flathead reservation is more integrated than other reservations which is interesting.
http://opi.mt.gov/Educators/Teaching-Learning/Indian-Education-for-All/Indian-Education-General-Information

Easy enough fix but that then breaks the rule of no county splits if you want to defend the map on that ground. Not that 1 county split is unreasonable.

It's literally one precinct which is 62% white at that with 1.2k people total.   The only inhabited portion in Missoula County is a tiny farming area.   I did say "almost" in the original description.   If people are going to make a fuss about that precinct then no map is going to be acceptable.

I do agree, but you did say the same amount how the other map would split a reservation when it doesn't do it anyway. Yes the Flathead reservation isn't as clear of a COI as other reservations.

[lfromnj]

https://www.ktvh.com/news/montana-politics/commission-parties-gear-up-for-battle-over-mts-congressional-districts?_amp=true&__twitter_impression=true

Everyone obviously so far agrees on East vs West split. Democrats want to create a district that is competitive and they proposed the Cascade Falls West but Kalispell East map. The GOP prefers excluding Bozeman .
We all know how this is going to end anyway.

[lfromnj]

How does the independent lean? This seems like an AZ/NJ style commission where the tiebreaker chooses a partisan leaning map.

This individual has donated to Democratic candidates/groups before, and is also a person of color (in this case, a Native American). However, the reservation she represents is the only one out of the seven major MT reservations that is not a virtual lock for Democrats in most elections.

That's due to the fact settlers were allowed onto the reservation itself making it majority white.

[lfromnj]

Still pretty easy to draw a map with no county splits that looks nice -




https://davesredistricting.org/join/2b9579a9-1252-41a1-965a-b689a4d832bc

Almost all Native American reservations in MT-2 (yes, excluding that one precinct in Missoula) and only 88 deviation total, no county splits.

Maybe the commission will copy this one too :-D

Haha, your map is proposal #2 on the commission's site.

My main problem is most of the main West/East divides seem intent on splitting Gallatin County (and putting Bozeman in the eastern district). All of the proposals seem intent on keeping Lewis and Clark intact and in the western district. One variation of #7 I'm surprised to not see is putting Lewis and Clark in the eastern district and putting all of Gallatin in the western district. The difference is a district that voted for Trump by over 13% versus 7-9% (the latter margin depends on where you put Glacier County). Assuming new maps can be introduced, that could be a potential compromise map between the two sides.

Going based on the numbers on the commission's site, I'd have to say my top three are #2, #7, and #9 (in no particular order).

Kept swingy Park instead of deep blue Glacier.

[lfromnj]

Kept swingy Park instead of deep blue Glacier.

That's a very acceptable map. Once you get the counties in green established (minus Park County), you have three main options. Yours is one, although I'm not terribly fond of a 4-digit deviation. A more Republican district goes into Jefferson County and splits Broadwater County is Trump+8.6%. The more Democratic version takes all of Glacier County and part of Pondera County to create a Trump+6.9% district. I think any of the three are very strong compromise maps .

Both would be bad from a COI perspective. Glacier is a really far drive from even Whitehead(like nearly 2 hours). Jefferson is partly in the Helena region anyway and finally Park seems similar to Livingston. Overall if you were going for the Helena split from the West of the 3 major splits the most logical extra county to add would still be Park and if this commission was actually bipartisan it makes the most sense as its middle of the ground in partisanship as well.

I guess Torie's map works as well though.

[lfromnj]

I drew the map below which nobody else on the planet seemed to replicate. I guess that means I am uniquely perspicacious or uniquely obtuse.

If there's one obvious aspect of the commission maps, it's that Republicans absolutely do not want the entirety of Gallatin County (namely Bozeman) in the western district. The main intention of most of the Democratic maps seems to be to keep all of the reservations together in the eastern district. That alone makes it easier to make the western district more competitive.

This is a map I mentioned above that puts the Blackfeet Indian Reservation in the western district (along with the Flathead Reservation):

I think while I am in "love" with my map, and want to bond with it, as a narcissist, yours is a worthy suitor, and may be the way out of the box for the 5th Commissioner vote, without being boxed into the hack category, so I think that is a good platform for the Dems to hang their hat on. If the 5th vote were an ethical Pub type, rather than an ethical Dem type, I would hawk my map, which moves the ball to another PVI Pub point.

One thing that kind of amuses me, is that the political coalitions are so unstable, and so based on the  moment on cult of personalities rather than something more substantive, that "fleeing" to what hews to neutral redistricting principles, might be the best option in a host of states for both parties. But long term thinking is not what politicians, most of them, want, in either party. They live for the moment to extend their half life in the public square, or what they perceive as the lucrative off ramp. Family first.

And the saddest thing of all, is that as a business plan for those for whom acting out of conscience, and sense of duty, it is in a neighborhood adjacent to  what I characterize as "pond scum," in the food chain. It's  a fail for those few who go there, at least at the margins.

Do you have any statements that the independent isn't Mattis 2.0? I am pretty sure Mattis made similar statements in the name of bipartisanship as well.

[lfromnj]

https://sg001-harmony.sliq.net/00309/Harmony/en/PowerBrowser/PowerBrowserV2/20211021/-1/44092

Montana redistricting maps should come soon.

[lfromnj]

Another proposal:

Who is it by?

[lfromnj]

https://www.bozemandailychronicle.com/news/politics/deadline-looming-for-decision-on-montanas-new-congressional-map/article_4177c88d-b55b-5368-a99b-293aaa22b179.html






Rs are  mostly  sticking with their initial compromise offer. They just removed Jefferson and placed the rest of Bozeman. Dems finally realized that Kalispell should obviously be in the Western district(It is west of the divide after all unlike Helena/Bozeman) But still are sticking with a Trump +2.5 district by forcing both Bozeman and Helena to be in the district.

I mean it is pretty obvious that the chair will just pick the Dem proposal so I have no idea why she wants to keep pushing this decision along.

[lfromnj]

https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1456402294082318336
Turns out Torie was right
The GOP made good faith efforts to compromise so I am guessing she decided to side with them for now. Dems were sticking on a Trump 2 to 3 district for the entire time.

Trump +7

https://twitter.com/EmmaNBCMT/status/1456400962663239682

[lfromnj]

Surprised we didn't see at least one true "north versus south" map from GOP opportunists here. It'd basically guarantee each district roughly mimicked the state as a whole electorally (In the last 4 top-ticket contests, the southern CD was a tight 1.1 to 1.8 points more Democratic than the northern CD), with there being virtually 0% chance a House Democrat could ever win either of them.

(splits L&C's population roughly in half; no other splits)

https://davesredistricting.org/join/b6022655-ba3f-468c-be5a-01575b1b73b6

Honestly I think the MT even without a commission would just draw East to West. It seems like too important of a cultural divide to break up to get 3 extra points.