Montana primary districting quirk

Remembering the good old days in Montana:

Montana’s delegate allocations are a little funky, with the state divided up into two pseudo-CDs based on Montana’s old congressional districts from the 1980s (it has just one now). Each district has five delegates…

Given the vast territory, this actually makes sense. Or at least it would if delegate candidates themselves actually did the campaigning.

Source: Nate Silver’s projection (which, by the way is: Obama 59.1%, Clinton 40.9%; Obama 9 delegates, Clinton 7).

Also relevant today: The South Dakota projection, and the attendant tricky demographics (all the trickier because exit polling has not asked about indigenous people’s preferences, even in other states where they are a substantial minority).

0 thoughts on “Montana primary districting quirk

  1. > ‘it has just one now”

    I once got into a debate with some PR-minded friends over whether a polity that elected all its reps at large (in this case, a city or shire electing its local councillors) had “no electoral districts” or “one electoral district”.

    Eventually we agreed – not too stipulatively, I hope – that it had one electorate or constituency but no districts or divisions.

    (“Division” is the term for an Aust House of Reps electoral constituency – most States’ laws use “district” for the lower house and either “province” [if it votes by majority] or “region” [if it uses PR] for the upper).

    This would be confirmed by the US practice of talking about CongressReps representing their respective “States or districts.”


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.