[_huayra_]

I'm glad you pointed this out. The parent comment to yours is the equivalent of people seeing a big red map of the US during the presidential race and saying "how come the Democrats win when there's so much red?!", as if land can vote -_-

[rmk]

In America, land can vote, although not in the Presidential election. The Senate.

[jjeaff]

Still not land voting. Seeing as RI gets the same number of votes as AK. And both senate candidates are selected by popular vote in the state, so even if most of the state is red, big blue cities can swing the vote.

[jack_squat]

RI has the same approximate population as AK. What people mean when they say land votes, is AK compared to NY. AK has a population of < 1M while NY has a population of > 8 million. Proportionally, Alaskans have > 8x the representation in the senate that New Yorkers have.

[jjeaff]

I haven't heard people say "land votes" (except in this thread). Only, "land doesn't vote".

[rmk]

Not a proportional vote but a territorial vote nonetheless.

[lotsofpulp]

It is the same in the presidential election, since number of electoral votes from the state includes number of senators.