You made an interesting assumption here, and aside from my answer in an earlier post (number 124) in which I debunked your representative fallacy; on second thought I decided to check the assumptions you made about population;
This is a surprising result. I used 2000 census data, since that gave me the most ease in tallying population figures for the states. Assuming that growth of population has been roughly proportional through out the states, then the proportional comparison should still be in line; I suspect that the R states have grown more than the D states considering the growth of Florida, Texas, Nevada, and the loss of population growth of New York, California, New Jersey, and possibly Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
Of the 28 states having republican US Senators:
State totals 138,081,893 / US total 281,422,000 = 49% in the year 2000
You of course didn't take into account the amount of seats that have changed hands since 2000.
The below figures took a bunch of researching, lol. The things I do to check my data.
First, of all, I'd like to say that you are correct in that my figures are in fact off.
As of July 1, 2009, the estimated population of the 50 states and District of Columbia was 307,006,550.
There are currently only 13 states with both Senate seats filled with Republicans. These states add up to a total population of 66,909,134 or approximately 22% of the population.
This is where the obviously exaggerated figure of 25% I used before comes from. I did it to make a point. You are correct to call me on that figure. My bad.
There are also 13 states where the seats are split, including Massachussetts. These states add up to a total population of 76,646,943 or 25% of the population. I divide this in half, though obviously that is not the correct way to do it, but it will serve for the purposes of my statement, giving us a figure of 12.5%.
So the total population represented by Republicans is 37.5%.
