Why would you ignore the largest state in that land area calculation? Alaska still isn’t quite enough to push the US up, but it’s good for another 20%-ish increase in land area over the contiguous number.
>Why would you ignore the largest state in that land area calculation?
As a non-contiguous later addition, with a small population, where statistically nobody lives there per sq mile, and is not pertinent to the discussion of population density as related to infrastructure problems?
Except in what's holding US bureucratic efficiency down (what we were discussing), and requires spending inflated federal budgets for little returns, Alaska is a big factor relative to its size...
