Read on Twitter
With everyone arguing about DC statehood, I thought I'd have a look at the states with at-large districts now, and how that has changed over time. In the past, some states elected multiple members at-large, but I'm going to leave those aside and focus on states with one Member.
Currently these states have at-large districts: Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont, and, Wyoming. Five of these are considered red states and two are considered blue states. But that's misleading.
AK and WY have always had one at-large district. Four men who have represented AK (two Ds and two Rs), with Don Young holding the seat since 1973, when he was elected to fill the vacancy created by the death of Nick Begich (father of Democratic Senator Mark Begich).
Alaska has had eight senators since statehood, again split evenly between the two parties, though Republicans have been in office quite a bit longer than Democrats thanks mainly to the forty-year tenure of Ted Stevens. That's two years more than AK's four Democrats combined.
WY is more reliably red, electing Republicans since Dick Cheney won the seat in 1978 to replace the retiring Teno Roncalio. Until the 1970s, Democrats consistently won Senate seats in Wyoming, but the GOP has dominated since Gale McGee lost to Malcolm Wallop in 1976.
VT is an interesting case. It's had as many as six Members (for a while all were elected at-large), but has had one since 1933. From '33 to 1991, the GOP held the seat for all but two years, at which point Bernie Sanders won it as an Independent caucusing with Democrats.
VT also sent two Republicans to the Senate until Patrick Leahy was elected in 1974 to replace the retiring George Aiken. Jim Jeffords was elected as a Republican in '88, became an independent in '01, announced he was retiring in '06, and was replaced by...Bernie Sanders.
SD started with two and had as many as three seats, but has been down to one since 1983. During that span, 3 Democrats have controlled the seat longer than the 3 Republicans, including from June 2004 to the end of 2010, when Kristi Noem beat Stephanie Herseth Sandlin.
In 1978, both of SD's Senators were Dems, but James Abourzek retired in 1979 and George McGovern lost in 1980. Since Abourzek retired, Dems have won 6 senate races and Republicans have won 8.
ND got bumped down to a single district in 1973. Since then, the GOP has held it for 9 terms and Dems have held it for 15, though not since Earl Pomeroy lost to Rick Berg in 2010.
Democrats held both of ND's Senate seats from the 1986 election until John Hoeven won in 2010. The GOP only captured both seats when Kevin Cramer beat Heidi Heitkamp last election cycle. From a Senate standpoint, ND has not been a "red state".
Turning to MT, Democrats haven't held its at-large district since Pat Williams retired going into the 1996 election. Five Republicans have held the seat, and a sixth is looking to get elected in November (with Greg Gianforte now running for Governor).
Why the high turnover? GOP House members keep running against, and losing to, Dem Senators. The GOP has only won 4 Senate races in MT since 1970. In that span, Dems have won 13. The GOP hasn't held both seats since 1907.
DE had 2 districts from 1813-1823, and always elected its Members at-large. The GOP has done reasonably well since Peter du Pont was elected in 1970. They've held the House seat for 15 terms vs 10 terms for Dems (though not since Mike Castle retired to run for Senate in 2010).
Since Joe Biden beat J. Caleb Boggs in 1972, Dems have held his seat. GOPer William Roth was elected 5 times in that span, but lost in 2000 to Tom Carper. For the last two decades, Dems have held both Senate seats in Delaware.
All of this is to say that the current lay of the land in the Senate is a relatively recent phenomenon. And I haven't even touched on small states that have grown, like Nevada or Utah. States grow and shrink relative to one another. State parties rise and fall. So it goes.
