A more accurate map of the 2004 election results
align="center">
I’ve already discussed the practice and pitfalls of graphing elections. Via Jack Vinson, here’s a great round-up on some of the maps produced from the 2004 presidential election: Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results.
The authors progress from the overly simplistic red state/blue state map to the somewhat misleading red county/blue county map. Sure, the county-by-county map makes Democrats look about as popular in this country as Bill Callahan in Norman, but it’s not that simple. The Dems do well in urban centers, which are concentrated in a few counties, and population size is not reflected in an all-or-nothing county breakdown.
To account for population size in voting—or better yet, electoral college votes—you need a cartogram. This adjusts the size of the state to the size of its electoral college weight and brings things into proportion. It also makes the United States of America look like melted candle wax. Oh well. To measure the enthusiasm of support for a candidate, that is, to gauge the “Republican-ness” of Wyoming vs. the “Republican-ness” of Iowa (both of which went for Bush, but by very different margins), a hue between blue and red is required. Enter purple.
So the moral of the story is this: To draw a map that accurately depicts the nationwide voting patterns of Americans in a presidential election, one must account both for population of a given geophical unit (either state or county) and the degree to which the unit supported a candidate. The former is accomplished by a cartogram, while the latter is accomplish by color variation.
September 6th, 2005 at 10:10 pm
yeah, if you want to be technical, your idea for that map is right. but the state by state and county by county map is just that. an area by area map and no one thinks that those areas are as highly populated as the areas that voted dem.
MI was for Bush by dang near 20%. Throw in Wayne and Livingston counties and the tables were turned and Bush was down by 20%. It’s just interesting to see what counties vote for whom as well as states as a whole.
March 18th, 2006 at 5:54 pm
What I see in the above picture
Map #1 Red States win, blue states lose.
Map #2 Red States win, blue states lose.
Map #3 Red States win, blue states lose.
No mater how much you play with the data, Red states win, blue states lose.
April 8th, 2006 at 9:04 am
The skewed maps prove one thing were population is high the Welfare and illegal aliens are highest as well. That is the true difference between the parties. Workers (red colors and a more conservative view), non workers and union members (Blue colors and a more socialist view).
A conservative view in this case: let me use my money as I see fit.
A socialist view in this case: Let me use your money they way I see fit.