That is true. However, if you thinik about it, Cali has a population of around 37,692,000 (as of 2011) and 53 congressional districts. This makes it close to 711,200 people per district. So it seems as if we are more competitive. But, those 37,692,000 all have to apply to the same senators. We only have 770,000 people applying to the same senators. Also, Young, Murkowski, and Begich communicate with each other to ensure that the same people are not chosen as top choices. Because, we are the 4th least populated state, this technically makes us one of the less competitive.
Thanks for the help!
P.S. Where are you at in the state?
I am based in Anchorage although I have received all my education overseas in Australian/UK-International schools.
Your data is good and here is a interactive map ( www datamasher org/mash-ups/people-representative ) to prove so.
This presents a small problem, a state like California (ranked 26th in people per representative) should intuitively be far more competitive than a state like Alaska (ranked 28th in people per representative). Then simply people per representative does not truly indicate how competitive a state is.
I would use something a bit more accurate as age topography varies greatly in states + only a certain age group is eligible to apply (17-24).
Alaska
Source: www infoplease com/us/census/data/alaska/demographic.html
Age Population Percentile
15 to 19 years 50,094 8.0
20 to 24 years 39,892 6.4
Representatives: 3
So ~30,000 people per representative (29995)
California
Source: www infoplease com/us/census/data/california/demographic.html
Age Population Percentile
15 to 19 years 2,450,888 7.2
20 to 24 years 2,381,288 7.0
Representatives: 51
So ~90,000 people per representative (91173)
These two sites can give a better outlook into a states competitiveness rather than just overall population statistics. To further detail a specific state, look at high school performance results in said state.
Hopefully I have shed light on something!