If Montana gets another House seat, shoud there be one or two districts?

[I’m not Stu]

2nd district or another at-large seat in MT?

[I’m not Stu]

This is hypothetical. After 2020 redistricting, if the population grows enough to gain a second seat. Should there be two districts or two at-large seats? I think a second at-large seat would make house races more competitive because with two districts; the Eastern district would be decided by Billings and Glendive, while Missoula would decide the outcome of the Western district.

[Crumpets]

I mean, it would be cool if they could do a proportional vote, whereby unless either party gets >75% of the vote, one is a Democratic seat and one is a Republican seat, but in the meantime, probably just two districts - especially because Montana does have some cultural divides between east and west.

[Chunk Yogurt for President!]

2 districts, having two at-large districts is for the Senate.

[I’m not Stu]

2 districts, having two at-large districts is for the Senate.

Two at-large seats can also be for the House if it follows the rule of one person one vote distribution. With the cultural division between different regions, an at-large district would make the state more competitive. Two districts would make Missoula's district more Democratic and Glendive's more GOP.

[Bigby]

I don't get At-Large House seats for states with more than 1 CD. Proportional.

[I’m not Stu]

I don't get At-Large House seats for states with more than 1 CD. Proportional.

The state would not have more than one district, it would have just one at-large district represented by two different House members elected separately. Two different districts in MT would each be more partisan.

[TDAS04]

2 districts of course.

[RaphaelDLG]

In a vacuum, I prefer MM at-large districts or, better yet, proportional at-large districts.

But here, because it would increase Democratic chances, I'll take another single-member district.

[Kingpoleon]

I don't get At-Large House seats for states with more than 1 CD. Proportional.

The state would not have more than one district, it would have just one at-large district represented by two different House members elected separately. Two different districts in MT would each be more partisan.

One R+~6 and one Tossup/D+1 seems more likely.

[I’m not Stu]

I don't get At-Large House seats for states with more than 1 CD. Proportional.

The state would not have more than one district, it would have just one at-large district represented by two different House members elected separately. Two different districts in MT would each be more partisan.

One R+~6 and one Tossup/D+1 seems more likely.

What would an at-large district with two seats be: R+?, or D+?, or even? Each party would need to run two candidates in the same district, one for each of the two seats.

[Bigby]

Why would two At-Large districts be radically different in terms of political leanings? Wouldn't every voter vote for both races?

[I’m not Stu]

Why would two At-Large districts be radically different in terms of political leanings? Wouldn't every voter vote for both races?

They wouldn't be. Every voter would get to vote in both races. They wouldn't be. What would the PVI for MT-AL be?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Apparently only Hawaii and New Mexico are allowed multimember congressional districts.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1967/h48

And since both states have significant minority populations, the VRA could still force them to have single member districts (or 2-1 for NM).

[IceAgeComing]

Why would two At-Large districts be radically different in terms of political leanings? Wouldn't every voter vote for both races?

They wouldn't be. Every voter would get to vote in both races. They wouldn't be. What would the PVI for MT-AL be?

...exactly what it is at the moment?

[I’m not Stu]

Why would two At-Large districts be radically different in terms of political leanings? Wouldn't every voter vote for both races?

They wouldn't be. Every voter would get to vote in both races. They wouldn't be. What would the PVI for MT-AL be?

...exactly what it is at the moment?

What is the PVI right now?

[Kingpoleon]

Why would two At-Large districts be radically different in terms of political leanings? Wouldn't every voter vote for both races?

They wouldn't be. Every voter would get to vote in both races. They wouldn't be. What would the PVI for MT-AL be?

...exactly what it is at the moment?

What is the PVI right now?

R+7.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

2nd district, since it gives each member a closer responsibility to a more local area.

[President Punxsutawney Phil]

I don't get At-Large House seats for states with more than 1 CD. Proportional.

The state would not have more than one district, it would have just one at-large district represented by two different House members elected separately. Two different districts in MT would each be more partisan.

One R+~6 and one Tossup/D+1 seems more likely.

[I’m not Stu]

Apparently only Hawaii and New Mexico are allowed multimember congressional districts.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1967/h48

And since both states have significant minority populations, the VRA could still force them to have single member districts (or 2-1 for NM).

It looks like this law contradicts the Founding Fathers' original intent. Multimember districts make sense in densely packed urban areas where two single neighboring districts would be very tiny. In these urban areas, multimember districts can reduce disenfranchisement of minority voters. Multimember districts would also be less partisan by not being so geographically small. How would an originalist view this 1967 law?

http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/district.htm

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Apparently only Hawaii and New Mexico are allowed multimember congressional districts.

https://www.govtrack.us/congress/votes/90-1967/h48

And since both states have significant minority populations, the VRA could still force them to have single member districts (or 2-1 for NM).

It looks like this law contradicts the Founding Fathers' original intent. Multimember districts make sense in densely packed urban areas where two single neighboring districts would be very tiny. In these urban areas, multimember districts can reduce disenfranchisement of minority voters. Multimember districts would also be less partisan by not being so geographically small. How would an originalist view this 1967 law?

http://archive.fairvote.org/library/history/flores/district.htm

It's certainly not prohibited by the Constitution to have multimember districts, and the founding generation might have found it odd to prohibit it, but Art 1, Sec 4:1 tends to imply that Congress can choose to do so.

[Coolface Sock #42069]

Two separate districts, just like any other state would have.