This map, sized based on electoral proportions
November 13, 2000 6:40 PM   Subscribe

This map, sized based on electoral proportions makes a lot more sense than the standard state-by-state or county-by-county one (that last one was marked up by peterme).
posted by mathowie (15 comments total)
Did anyone else just have a Tetris flashback?
posted by gluechunk at 6:58 PM on November 13, 2000

That's a great map. Sure beats those "Blue Islands in a Red Sea" type maps. It really shows the knife edge this election rests on.

posted by lagado at 7:04 PM on November 13, 2000

We know that the electoral college distorts the value of each person’s vote, but does anyone know the relative value of a single vote for each state? Am I correct in guessing that each vote in a smaller state is worth more than each vote in a larger state because of this distortion?
posted by justkurt at 7:50 PM on November 13, 2000

justkurt: I was wondering about that too. Does the Electoral College value change with census updates?
posted by thirteen at 7:59 PM on November 13, 2000

Because the electoral college gives each state one vote for each senator and rep., a state like Alaska ends up having each vote count 3 times as much as a vote in California, if thats what you're asking. Bigger states get shafted with the electoral college

posted by Kevs at 8:05 PM on November 13, 2000

13, justkurt
States find out how many Reps they get with the Census. Ergo, states find out how many votes in the Electoral College via the census.

Regarding the note on the right, think: urban areas. That swath starts in Durham, goes through Atlanta and Little Rock and meets up with the mighty Mississip.

What do you mean by “sense?” All these maps reflect differnet data.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 8:36 PM on November 13, 2000

Which, of course, was part of the point. Though I don't think that the extremes tell the whole story; Alaska's 3 electorals don't influence many elections, but California's 45 ... who was the last presidential candidate to even barnstorm Anchorage?

Thanks, Matt, I was wondering if somebody would pick this up after I dropped it at the bottom of a thread (where I can get away with a little on-topic self-blogging, heh).

As a matter of fact I am already working on a chart showing the value of each individual citizen per electoral vote by state, the value of each actual voter, and the value of each vote for either Bush or Gore. With, of course, certain gaps at this point. But if somebody's already done the work ....
posted by dhartung at 8:39 PM on November 13, 2000

Oh, more data for peterme: that blue area in Kentucky and West Virginia is Coal Country up in the Appalachians. Heavily union, heavily democratic. People there don't move away to the suburbs, they still remember their daddy's uncle got shot by the Pinkertons for organizin', that sort of thing.

Anything near water is going to have a city.

And if I'm not mistaken, that southern swath may well correspond with high African-American demographics.
posted by dhartung at 8:48 PM on November 13, 2000

That's true, dhartung, and the blue in Texas and all the way along the border with Mexico is heavily Hispanic.

I've just prepared a table that divides the registered voters from 1998 by the number of electoral votes. It goes from

Michigan with 18 Electors, 6,838,858 registered voters = 379,937 voters per Elector


North Dakota with 3 Electors and 213,358 registered voters = 71,119 voters per Elector.

If anyone's interested I can email them the table or post it right here (but it's kind of long).
posted by mikel at 9:22 PM on November 13, 2000

peterme's on the case, I think: the south-eastern swath is the I-20 corridor, which links up with I-85 in Atlanta through Greensboro, Charlotte and Raleigh-Durham, and I-95 on the east coast. (I drove that way in August...)

As I said in an email, you've got the whole "interstate economy": the service industries of the Waffle House, the gas station and the outlet mall. Which I'd guess plays into Gore's hands.
posted by holgate at 9:35 PM on November 13, 2000

Oh, more data for peterme: that blue area in Kentucky and West Virginia is Coal Country up in the Appalachians. Heavily union, heavily democratic.

Correct assessment of the long-time Democrat tradition in the coal fields. One problem though, both Kentucky and West Virginia went for Bush this election. The reason was simple. The union coal miners could not abide Gore's environmental policies that would in essence kill their industry. First Republican to win West Virginia since Reagan's re-election, and only the 2nd time since the Depression.
posted by netbros at 9:47 PM on November 13, 2000

Here's a somewhat more sinister reading of the map:
A Nation Divided: Battle Plans


Click on the Battleground via Follow Me Here

posted by lagado at 6:08 AM on November 14, 2000

following peter's lead, here's a solution.

can we move on now? please? i'm tired of the news really being about something. i want to go back to vapid, filler news stories. you know, fluffy kitten stuck up a tree or evil dot com meanies.
posted by heather at 7:28 AM on November 14, 2000

if I could nitpick, that swath doesn't actually go *though* Atlanta---if you look in Georgia, you'll see a blue blotch just to the north of the swath that's actually Atlanta... the swath itself is Middle Georgia, and as a former resident, I can tell you that what's there is a whole lot of nothing.

Milledgeville for Gore! ... I don't get it. But I am proud of them nonetheless.

dhartung may be right, actually.
posted by Sapphireblue at 7:47 AM on November 14, 2000

People Saying that voters in this or that state might want to have a look at this link

It's a mathematician who actaully went and proved exactly how much "power" each indiviual wields unde r an electoral college system v. direct election. Turns up that electoral college maximizes the power of each voter.

posted by dcodea at 10:20 AM on November 15, 2000

« Older A Chronovore   |   I enjoy seeing a real world issue collide with a... Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments