You might think that looking at a Wikipedia table
of politicians is just a quick, incredibly effective
way to put yourself to sleep. Oh, absolutely.
The ultimate cure for insomnia. Right. I mean,
picture the scene. You're sitting there. scrolling
through columns of dates, standard political
party abbreviations, black and white portraits
of men from the 19th century. And your eyes just
start to glaze over almost immediately. Exactly.
But today we are looking at a very specific set
of data. We're taking a deep dive into the list
of United States senators from North Dakota.
Which I know sounds completely unassuming on
the surface. We are talking about a single Wikipedia
page here. It is really just a chronological
list detailing every person who has held a Senate
seat for North Dakota since it achieved statehood.
That was my first thought as well. It sounds
so dry. But if you actually stop and look closely
at the dates, the sudden ends to terms, the wildly
shifting party labels. It is wild. A completely
different picture emerges. OK, let's unpack this.
Our mission for this deep dive is to read between
the lines of this seemingly dry data table. Because
when you do, you uncover this absolutely fascinating
narrative. We are talking about sudden, shocking
tragedies. Spouses stepping in to succeed their
partners. Completely unique third party labels
that you just don't see anywhere else. And a
literal high stakes game of Senate musical chairs.
It really is. It serves as a perfect example
of how raw data tells a story. We are just looking
at a list of names. You know, this is a structural
map of how political power is transferred. Right.
It reveals how power is interrupted by just the
unpredictability of human life and how it is
maintained over the course of more than 130 years.
It shows the sheer unglamorous mechanics of government.
In a way that reading a standard narrative history
book sometimes just totally misses. Absolutely.
But before we get into the really wild stories
hidden in this table, I think we need to explain
the structure a bit. Oh, right. Because I am
looking at the columns here and it keeps dividing
everything into class one and class three. Yes.
The entire page is structured around those two
categories. What actually is a class one or class
three seat? That is a crucial piece of the puzzle
to understand how this all works. When the United
States Senate was created, the founders didn't
want the entire body turning over all at once
every few years. That would be chaos. Complete
chaos. They wanted stability. So they divided
the Senate seats into three staggered groups
or classes. Senators serve six year terms, but
the elections are staggered so that only one
third of the Senate is up for election every
two years. Meaning a state's two senators are
never in the same class. Precisely. For North
Dakota, they were assigned a class one seat and
a class three seat. OK. That means the two senators
from the state are never running for regular
reelection at the exact same time. It ensures
that a state always has at least one senior representative
holding down the fort while the other seat goes
through the electoral process. That makes so
much more sense. And as we will see later in
this data, the interaction between those two
separate staggered seats. creates some incredibly
bizarre logistical situations. Well, the quirks
in these two seats start literally on day one
of the data. They really do. Let's look at the
very beginning of the timeline. North Dakota
is admitted to the Union on November 10, 1889.
Statehood is achieved. Big day for the state.
Huge day. You would think the very next second
their brand new senators are walking into the
Capitol building to get to work. But the spreadsheet
shows the seats were totally vacant until November
25, 1889. That is a 23 -day gap where a brand
new state in the Union just didn't have representation
in the Senate chamber. Which is wild to think
about. Yeah. It wasn't until November 25 that
Lyman R. Casey and Gilbert A. Pierce finally
took office to represent that Class 1 and Class
3 structure you just mentioned. Right. So right
off the bat, the timeline is messy and delayed.
But the first really glaring anomaly in this
data, the thing that makes you stop scrolling
and look a little closer, is in the party column.
The party affiliations in North Dakota's history
are remarkably distinct from the typical American
political binary. Usually, if you look at a list
of U .S. senators from almost any state, that
column has a very predictable, almost metronomic
rhythm of Democratic and Republican. Maybe you
see an independent sprinkled in once in a blue
moon. But this list features labels like nonpartisan
league. Which stands out immediately. And you
see Republican, but in parentheses next to it,
it says NPL. And then much later on the page,
you see Democratic NPL. Just a quick note for
you listening. We are just looking at the raw
data here on the spreadsheet. Yes, very important.
We aren't taking any political sides or endorsing
these parties left or right. We were just fascinated
by how these unique labels behave mathematically
on the page. over the decades. That is the best
way to look at it. What's fascinating here is
that even without bringing in a mountain of outside
historical context about their platforms or policies,
the source data alone proves that North Dakota's
political identity simply didn't fit neatly into
a standard two -party system. Right. It just
doesn't map onto what we normally see. Exactly.
The data shows this NPL tag, the Nonpartisan
League, surviving across vast stretches of time.
It operates almost like a symbiotic organism
within the two major your national parties. It
really does read like a biological mutation on
the page. Yeah. Look at the timeline in the 1920s.
You have Edwin F. Ladd and Lynn Frazier, both
listed as Republican NPL. Yep. Then you literally
have a senator. Gerald Nye, who was appointed
and initially listed purely as nonpartisan league
in 1925 before his affiliation shifts to Republican
NPL for his later terms. The mutation doesn't
stop there either. As we move down the rows into
the second half of the 20th century, the NPL
tag manages to jump completely across the aisle.
That is the part that really stands out visually.
Quentin Burdick takes office in 1960 and his
party is listed as Democratic NPL. And that specific
hyphenated tag stays incredibly resilient. It
attaches to Kent Conrad in the 80s and 90s, Byron
Dorgan through the 2000s, and all the way up
to Heidi Heitkamp, who served from 2013 to 2019.
The NPL tag just glides from the Republican column
over to the Democratic column and anchors itself
there for roughly 60 years. It shows a local
political brand that held so much enduring weight.
with the voters of North Dakota that the national
parties seemingly had to accommodate it rather
than the other way around. That makes total sense.
To survive for a century on a federal spreadsheet,
a local movement has to be deeply ingrained in
the state's DNA. But beyond the party labels,
the dates themselves reveal a staggering amount
of human drama. Oh, the dates are where the real
intense stories are hiding. Let's talk about
longevity and tenure, because North Dakota has
seen some incredibly long -serving senators.
They absolutely have. Milton Young holds the
all -time record. Looking at his row, he held
office from 1945 all the way to 1981. That is
36 years in the Senate. He was a Republican who
just held that seat down through the end of World
War II, the entire Cold War, Vietnam, all the
way to the dawn of the Reagan era. A 36 -year
career is an institution in itself. When someone
serves that long, they accumulate immense seniority,
committee chairmanships, and institutional memory.
Right, they become a fixture. But the data shows
that the catalyst for how he acquired that immense
power was incredibly sudden and tragic. It's
one of the wildest successions on the entire
list. To understand Milton Young's 36 -year reign,
you have to look at the guy directly above him
on the spreadsheet. Democrat John Moses. Yes,
John Moses. Moses runs for the Senate. He goes
through the whole grueling process, and he's
elected in 1944. He officially takes office on
January 3, 1945. And then the data just has a
stark little note that says, died on March 3,
1945. He served exactly two months. Two months.
He goes through an entire massive statewide campaign,
wins the trust of the voters, travels to Washington,
D .C., and 60 days later, he passes away. The
vacancy act was on March 3rd. Just nine days
later, on March 12th, 1945, Milton Young is appointed
to continue Moses' term. That one tragedy, that
sudden opening, turned into a nearly four -decade
career for someone else entirely. It really makes
you realize how fragile the timeline of history
actually is. It really highlights the immense
consequential weight of a Senate appointment.
An appointment isn't just a temporary placeholder.
It is often the launchpad for decades of incumbency.
The person appointed gets a head start on building
a war chest and staff before they even have to
face the voters. And John Moses wasn't an isolated
incident. The data reveals a recurring theme
of mortality interrupting the political machinery.
It happens surprisingly often in this specific
list. Martin N. Johnson was elected in 1909 and
died that same year. Edwin F. Ladd was elected
in 1920 and died in 1925. William Langer was
elected in 1940, reelected multiple times, and
then died in office in 1959. And then there is
the incredible story of the Burdick family. Oh,
this one is fascinating. The succession following
Quentin Burdick's death is a fascinating data
point for understanding institutional continuity.
Quentin Burdick was another titan of the Senate.
He served from August 1960 until September 8,
1992, when he died in office. That is 32 years
of continuous representation. But what happens
next in the data is remarkable. The vacancy lasts
just four days. On September 12, 1992, Jocelyn
Burdick is appointed to the seat. If we connect
this to the bigger picture, Jocelyn Burdick was
Quentin Burdick's wife. She was appointed to
continue her husband's term. And this is a crucial
mechanism in how the Senate operates during a
sudden crisis. For you, the listener, understanding
this helps make sense of how government handles
sudden vacuums of power. Right, because when
a senator with decades of tenure suddenly passes
away, it creates an enormous void. An immediate
logistical crisis for the state's representation
in Washington. That makes perfect sense. The
state needs someone who can immediately step
into the role. I imagine they need someone who...
The existing staff already knows someone who
understands the ongoing day to day work of that
specific office. Furthermore, they need someone
who isn't trying to use the appointment to bypass
an election for a new long term career. Right.
A governor making an appointment often looks
for a caretaker, a trusted pair of hands who
will keep the lights on without giving a new
politician an unfair incumbency advantage before
the voters can have their say. The data explicitly
notes that for Jocelyn Burdick. It says, appointed
to continue her husband's term, retired when
successor elected. She held the seat from September
to December of 1992. She provided a recognized
name and a steady presence. Keeping the seat
functioning until a special election could be
held to let the voters decide the long -term
future of the seat. It is a poignant, very human
solution to a rigid constitutional requirement.
It absolutely is. But if the Burdick transition
was a smooth, orderly passing of the baton in
the face of tragedy. Things aren't always that
smooth. Not at all. Here's where it gets really
interesting. Sometimes replacing a senator is
absolute chaos. Let's look at the ultimate game
of Senate musical chairs. I want to take you
back to the class three seat between the years
1909 and 1911. This is perhaps the most turbulent
stretch of data on the entire page. It's genuinely
hard to keep track of. OK, follow this timeline.
We start with Senator Martin N. Johnson. He takes
office on March 4th, 1909. Things are going fine
until October 21st, 1909, when he dies. So there's
a sudden vacancy. The governor has to act quickly
to ensure the state isn't down a vote. So on
November 10th, 1909, Faunel Thompson is appointed
to continue Johnson's term. Great. The seat is
filled. But look at his end date. January 31st,
1910. He is in office for roughly two and a half
months, and the reason listed, resigned. He didn't
lose an election. He didn't die. He just stepped
down. He was walked away. The data doesn't tell
us why he resigned, but the sheer rapidity of
it is striking. It creates an immediate secondary
crisis. So now we have another sudden vacancy.
The very next day, February 1st, 1910, William
E. Purcell is appointed. He's the third guy to
sit in the single seat in less than a year. But
Purcell wants to keep the job. Right. So he runs
in the election to finish Johnson's original
term. But the data says, lost election to finish
Johnson's term. His term ends exactly one year
later, on February 1st, 1911. Which brings us
to the fourth man for this single seat. Alwell
Grona. Crona is elected to finish the term. But
wait, there is a footnote in the data. He was
elected in 1911, but he, quote, didn't qualify
until resigning from the U .S. House. He was
already serving in the House of Representatives.
So he wins the Senate seat, but can't take it
immediately until he clears out his other office.
He finally takes the Senate seat on February
10, 1911. Four different men held or fiercely
fought for this single class three seat in a
span of less than two years. From an institutional
standpoint. How much chaos does it actually cause
when a seat changes hands four times in two years?
It creates an administrative nightmare. Imagine
being a constituent trying to get a federal issue
resolved or a staff member trying to manage the
office. Every time a new senator is appointed,
there is potential for... new staff, new committee
assignments, and a complete reset of seniority.
You essentially start from scratch every few
months. Exactly. A state loses immense leverage
in Washington when a seat is caught in a revolving
door like that. It underscores a reality of the
political system. It is heavily reliant on logistics.
The timing of appointments, the scheduling of
special elections, the constitutional qualifications
of the candidates. All of these gears have to
perfectly align just to keep the government functioning
at a basic level. And speaking of logistics and
gears aligning perfectly, we have to talk about
Kent Conrad. This is my absolute favorite anomaly
on the entire spreadsheet. It is a brilliant
piece of maneuvering. I am looking at the nose
for him in 1992, and the data is making my head
spin. It says he retired but then resigned early
when he was elected to the other seat. How does
someone do that? This is a maneuver so technical
and precise it feels like a political magic trick.
Let's break down this timeline for the listener,
and let's use a visual to make sense of it. Picture
two chairs. Chair A is the class one seat. Chair
B is the class three seat. Okay, I have Chair
A and Chair B in my head. In 1992, Kent Conrad
is sitting in Chair A. His term is set to expire
in January 1993. He decides he is going to retire.
He is not running for re -election. So a man
named Byron Dorgan runs for chair A in the regular
November 1992 election, and Dorgan wins. Dorgan
is set to take over chair A in January 1993.
That part seems simple enough. A normal retirement
and a normal succession. But we have to look
at chair B. In September 1992, remember, Quentin
Burdick dies. That is chair B. Jocelyn Burdick
is appointed as a temporary placeholder, a caretaker,
until a special election can be held in December
1992 to finish Quentin's term. So Kent Conrad,
who had just told everyone he was retiring from
Chair A, looks at the sudden opening in Chair
B and says, actually, I'll run for that one.
And he wins. He wins the special election for
Chair B. But here's the logistical nightmare
that the data hints at. The special election
for Chair B takes effect immediately in December.
But Conrad is technically still sitting in Chair
A until January. He obviously cannot sit in two
Senate chairs at the exact same time. The Constitution
definitely doesn't allow that. To make the timeline
work, Kent Conrad has to coordinate a very delicate
sequence of events. He resigns from Chair A a
few weeks early. The data shows he officially
resigns on December 14, 1992. Okay. That same
exact day, December 14, 1992. But wait, if he
vacates chair A on December 14th, that creates
a random three -week vacancy in his old seat
before January. It does. But because Byron Dorgan
had already won the regular election for chair
A and was just waiting around until January to
start work, the governor simply appointed Dorgan
to fill that three -week vacancy. So Dorgan gets
appointed on December 15th, 1992. He gets a tiny
head start on his seniority and Conrad smoothly
transitions to his new long term seat. It is
an incredibly elegant, bizarre piece of political
maneuvering, all hidden in just a handful of
dates in a Wikipedia table. This raises an important
question. How often do we think of government
as this rigid, unchanging, monolithic machine?
Almost always. We assume it just runs on autopilot,
governed by strict laws. But when you look at
these dates, you realize that in reality, maintaining
a continuous government requires this kind of
intense on -the -fly puzzle solving. Right. The
Constitution lays out the rules, but the reality
of human ambition, sudden deaths, and awkward
electoral timing forces these incredibly creative
logistical solutions. It really is just human
beings constantly adapting. to keep the lights
on. It's absolutely wild to think about the phone
calls and planning that went into that one week
in December. A lot of late nights, I'm sure.
Definitely. And that brings us to the current
roster. If you scroll all the way down to the
bottom of the table today, North Dakota's representation
has settled into a much more predictable rhythm.
Yes, things are a bit calmer now. The state's
current delegation consists of two Republicans.
You have John Hoeven. holding down that class
three seat. He's been there since 2011, having
been reelected in 2016 and 2022. And in the class
one seat, you have Kevin Cramer, who took office
in 2019 after defeating the last Democratic NPL
holdout, Heidi Heitkamp, in the 2018 election.
He was just reelected in the most recent 2024
cycle. So what does this all mean? We started
this deep dive looking at a simple spreadsheet
of names, parties, and election dates. But to
truly be informed, you have to look past the
surface. You really do. What looks like a boring
ledger is actually a saga of human endurance,
like Milton Young's 36 -year run born out of
a devastating two -month tragedy. It's a record
of intense political strategy. like Kent Conrad's
masterful seat -swapping maneuver. And it's a
testament to historical unpredictability, where
a single Senate seat can chew through four different
men in the span of 16 months. It reminds us that
history isn't just a series of inevitable events
marching forward. It's a constant, scrambling
reaction to the unexpected. And I'll leave you
with this final thought to mull over. Okay. We've
just extracted an entire saga of drama, legacy,
institutional maneuvering, and structural adaptation
from a single supposedly dry Wikipedia data table.
If a simple list of names and dates is secretly
hiding an absolute soap opera of seat swapping
and unexpected successions, what other boring
historical lists, corporate ledgers, or seemingly
mundane spreadsheets in your own life are actually
hiding incredible untold stories? That is a fascinating
question. human narratives are you missing out
on simply because the formatting looks tedious?
That is such a great point to end on. The stories
are always there if you know how to read the
data. Thank you so much for taking this deep
dive with us today. Keep looking past the surface,
keep asking questions, and we will catch on the
next one.