This is misleading, because the sample size is too small to be significant. It is largely a function that the senators who, over that period, were the most active and the least likely to quit where regional ones. In fact it was always noticeable how few regional senators resigned due to activity. I'd suggest the high number of at large senators is because they kept on getting expelled for inactivity 
This is a point that deserves to be highlighted. At-large elections have given us most of our least reliable and least committed Senators. On the other hand, it's virtually impossible to win a contested regional seat without working for it, whether you're an incumbent or not.
This suggests that there's something very wrong with these elections in terms of keeping at-large Senators accountable to their voters. Even worse, when an at-large Senator resigns, this usually triggers a national, single-seat election. These special elections are some of Atlasia's best, but they're hardly a boon to diversity and minority representation.
In two years the Feds have not won a special election for Senate. The Progressive Union and DRs did though.
You say that as if detracts from my point. I'm not sure how it does.
It is responding to your last sentence about the specials detracted from diversity. In both cases a minor party candidate defeated a major party candidate in a nationwide election because they had more swing voters at their disposal then they did in their one on one races.
The Federalists have never won a special Senate election. You don't see the problem here?
Are you sure Nix? Matt didn't defeat Bore once??? I'm not sure.
