Posted on 11/09/2004 9:32:40 AM PST by Diddle E. Squat
Election results by state
On election night and in the days since then, we have seen many maps that look like this:
The (contiguous 48) states of the country are colored red or blue to indicate whether a majority of their voters voted for the Republican candidate (George W. Bush) or the Democratic candidate (John F. Kerry) respectively. The map gives the superficial impression that the "red states" dominate the country, since they cover far more area than the blue ones. However, as pointed out by many others, this is misleading because it fails to take into account the fact that most of the red states have small populations, whereas most of the blue states have large ones. The blue may be small in area, but they are large in terms of numbers of people, which is what matters in an election.
We can correct for this by making use of a cartogram, a map in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population. That is, states are drawn with a size proportional not to their sheer topographic acreage -- which has little to do with politics -- but to the number of their inhabitants, states with more people appearing larger than states with fewer, regardless of their actual area on the ground. Thus, on such a map, the state of Rhode Island, with its 1.1 million inhabitants, would appear about twice the size of Wyoming, which has half a million, even though Wyoming has 60 times the acreage of Rhode Island.
Here are the 2004 presidential election results on a population cartogram of this type:
The cartogram was made using the diffusion method of Gastner and Newman, which is described in detail in this article. Population data were taken from the 2000 US Census. Iowa and New Mexico, which at the time of writing were officially undeclared, we have assumed to have a Republican majority -- all indications are that this will be the final declaration once recounts are complete.
The cartogram reveals what we know already from the news: that the country was actually very evenly divided by the vote, rather than being dominated by one side or the other.
Election results by county
But we can go further. We can do the same thing also with the county-level election results and the images are even more striking. Here is a map of US counties, again colored red and blue to indicate Republican and Democratic majorities respectively:
Similar maps have appeared in the press, for example in USA Today, and have been cited as evidence that the Republican party has wide support. Again, however, a cartogram gives a more accurate picture. Here is what the cartogram looks like for the county-level election returns:
Again, the blue areas are much magnified, and areas of blue and red are now nearly equal. However, there is in fact still more red than blue on this map, even after allowing for population sizes. Of course, we know that nationwide the percentages of voters voting for either candidate were almost identical, so what is going on here?
The answer seems to be that the amount of red on the map is skewed because there are a lot of counties in which only a slim majority voted Republican. One possible way to allow for this, suggested by Robert Vanderbei at Princeton University, is to use not just two colors on the map, red and blue, but instead to use red, blue, and shades of purple to indicate percentages of voters. Here is what the normal map looks like if you do this:
And here's what the cartogram looks like:
In this map, it appears that only a rather small area is taken up by true red counties, the rest being mostly shades of purple with patches of blue in the urban areas.
A slight variation on the same idea is to use a nonlinear color scale like this:
These maps use a color scale that ranges from red for 70% Republican or more, to blue for 70% Democrat or more. This is sort of practical, since there aren't many counties outside that range anyway, but to some extent it also obscures the true balance of red and blue.
© 2004 M. T. Gastner, C. R. Shalizi, and M. E. J. Newman
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Text and images may be freely distributed and used in derivative works provided the original authors are acknowledged. We would appreciate hearing about such uses of our work.
High-resolution versions of the figures appearing here are available on request from the authors.
Our computer software to produce cartograms is freely available here.
The views expressed are personal and are not necessarily shared by the University of Michigan.
Mark Newman, November 7, 2004
The authors have also done a good job in better differentiating the colors in the 'purple map'.
Looks to me like they're just trying to make the maps appear more blue. Oh well, whatever gets them through the next 4 years.
Good one, thanks for posting it.
Maps!
Bump.
No matter how you slice it, Kerry got 3.5 million less votes than Bush.
He also loses in the Electoral College.
I think this one is missing some data. There shouldn't be all that white in the NE.
*
My lawn tried to vote for Bush but didn't care to wait in line behind the college students and residents of Massachusetts who were ready to pretend to be residents of New Hampshire and vote illegally here so Kerry could get our electoral votes.
Yeah, that ought to do it..............
and this:
To settle an argument, I ran the numbers for the 2000 election based on apportionment of the EV's. The results were:
Bush 273
Gore 263
Nader 2
My criteria was this: The winner of the most votes, got the most EV's for that state. logical yes, but in a state that has 5 EV's and split was 50-49.5, the fifty got three EV's, the other 2.
Also Nader only got an EV in a state where his perccentage equaled the percentage equivalent of one electoral vote. (i.e. 5 EV's requires twenty percent of the vote, 50 EV's would require two percent).
I think if we ran the numbers for 2004, Bush would come ahead by an even wider margin then he actually did.
Interesting
Fabulous! Hard numbers and diagrams tell quite a story.
bump
It all depends on how you look at it.
WHOOPS! Meant to post the smaller one...sorry, everybody...
Looks like the U.S. on drugs.
The authors are trying to prove the country isn't more conservative
Quit showing dirty pictures.
ping
"Them looks like hog jowls." - Jethro Bodine at army induction
SOME OF THOSE MAPS LOOK LIKE A 'FISH'.
And what's with this:
In this map, it appears that only a rather small area is taken up by true red counties, the rest being mostly shades of purple with patches of blue in the urban areas.
What's their definition of a "truly red" county? 80-20? The bottom line that these guys don't want to admit is that except in a few states (Iowa, for instance) the candidate who took the state did so by a clear majority of 2-5 points or more. It wasn't really close anywhere that would have changed the balance, so the real sense of the election really is contained in the state-by-state and county-by-county maps. Probably the blue and red would only shift a bit if we could show precincts, with a few tiny blue spots in the red counties and a few tiny red spots in some of the blue counties. For example, my precinct went for Kerry by 30 votes (which I credit to the polling place being in a low-income senior housing project) but my county went for Bush by 10% and my city by a smaller but clear margin.
I think I'm going to be sick......
So...on that map...white is 50-50?
They look like blobs you'd find in old hippie music videos from the 60s...
It is just another layer of analysis. The next step would be to do cartograms for previous elections, especially those considered landslides, for comparison. The difference between political 'landslides' and close elections is relatively minor when mapped this way.
Though statistically valid, this is liberal equivocation intended to keep the "America is polarized" myth alive. It's time to use words like "individuated," "dissconnected" and "disassociated" when discussing the current condition of "Blue America."
I see someone already made a Dali reference. But the first thing I thought of were Dali's grotesque, contorted figures. By the way, this map is BS. It shows Mississippi (5 representatives) as almost the same size as Illinois (19) and larger than Missouri (8 or 10, I forget)
Those cartograms are somewhat interesting, but not nearly as useful as a comparison of the Red-Shift from 2000 (really, from 1994 on) to 2004.
A more dynamic map would show the *trend* to the Right as well as the geographic distrution of votes.
That's what is killing the Dems right now, the trend. If we run Senator Rick Santorum as our VP candidate in 2008, for instance, Republicans will add the state of Pennsylvania to the Red column. Wisconsin will probably go our way, too. If we run Rudi Giuliani as our VP candidate, then we'll take New York from the Dems.
To even be competitive, the Dems will have to shift to the Right to have a shot at flipping a Heartland state (e.g. expect Virginia's Governor Warner to be a front-runner for the Dem nomination in 2008).
If they buck the *trend*, then we will again crush them by re-winning all of our 2004 red states again in 2008. They can run Hillary, Kerry, Gore, Dean, Dukakis, even Rockefeller in 2008 and they won't flip any Red States over to blue. That means that they lose, again (and again, and again).
So what you want from a more useful map is *not* the cartogram so much as a trend-o-gram. Show where the Red-Shift is currently located and which direction it is headed.
Introducing a new map may convince people that the election was closer than other maps indicate, but in the end it means little unless you apply the same mapping to other elections through history to provide a context or background against which we can evaluate last week's result.
of course he left the most important maps for last... showing counties that are 70% or MORE for Bush!!! they always leave till last what they don't want to tell you.
Blue being the deoxygenated portion of Our Brain.
I knew all that LSD would catch up with me.
Major flashback.
"Truckin'....got my chips cashed in....keep Truckin'...."
What is it about liberals and coastlines, anyway?
Cities (dense urban areas are 'rat havens) are generally built on coastlines and along navigable waterways.
Now, if Republicans would move out of those blue states into red states, we would have even more electoral clout!
Proud to live in Bush country....Virginia!
Interesting... thanks for the ping!
Thanks,Howlin...very interesting maps.At last my RED area shows up in a damned "blue" state.
Looks like a Japanese science fiction movie.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.