As a complement to Kieran’s post, Michael Gaster, Cosma Shalizi’s and Mark Newman’s electoral map where area is proportional to population is fascinating, as well as weirdly beautiful - like butterflies exploding. Gaster-Shalizi-Newman also have a really interesting analysis of the distribution of votes for for the Republican candidate - go read it now.
Update: according to Cosma, the histogram on his site showing 300 odd counties with 99% Democratic support was the result of a coding error - however the map is accurate.
“The number of counties in which more than 99% of voters voted Democrat was 307.”
99% for Kerry? That’s astonishing. What counties would these be?
And check out Appalachia:
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/mapcolorslarge.png
Nearly 400 counties voted almost 100% Democrat? Which counties are these?
cf. Geomblog
What about Appalachia? I see a wide range of colors there.
Tom
>What about Appalachia?<
Perhaps I’m geographically confused, but there’s a red swath running from northern Alabama to central Pennsylvania. WV is mottled, but it only recently switched camps.
Where is the outrage at the use of easily hackable electronic voting machines, without a voter-verifiable paper trail?
In my view the use of these machines thoroughly delegitimizes the election results. Don’t be so quick to try to find fault with Democrats when it is very likely that the Republicans have stolen yet another election.
More information here:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003197.html
and here:
http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/003214.html
and here:
http://www.tompaine.com/articles/kerry_won_.php
http://www.flashpoints.net/#2004-11-03
http://www.accuracy.org/press_releases/PR110304.htm
http://politics.slashdot.org/politics/04/11/06/1857203.shtml?tid=103&tid=226&tid=172&tid=126
http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=388
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/10103931.htm?1c
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20041105/ap_on_el_pr/voting_problems
http://www.newbernsj.com/SiteProcessor.cfm?Template=/GlobalTemplates/Details.cfm&StoryID=18297&Section=Local
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/1105-25.htm
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/3/52213/1921
http://nyc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/130301/index.php
http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2004/11/302395.shtml
http://www.wired.com/news/evote/0,2645,65623,00.html?tw=wn_tophead_2
http://www.movingideas.org/activism/networks/post_election.html
http://www.iht.com/bin/print_ipub.php?file=%2Farticles%2F2004%2F11%2F02%2Fnews%2Fobserve.html
Yeah, I can dig it. If I just hang out in my room. And turn off all the lights but the black light. And drop a couple of hits of purple microdot. Things don’t look so bad after all.
I think Goffman called these sorts of maps “secondary adjustments.”
I, too, am having a little trouble with there being many ~100% blue counties and few ~100% red counties. Maybe it’s because I’m in the southwest, but I would have guessed the reverse. (I’d have thought that there’d be quite a few low-population, rural heavily-red counties, especially in the west; while the heavily-blue urban counties would always have a minority of conservatives.)
As I ponder this, one thought that occurs to me is that because urban areas are highly populated, are their counties correspondingly geographically small and thus more likely to represent clustering of very like-minded individuals? I dunno.
The researchers must have some messed-up data. There cannot possibly be 400 counties voting 99% Kerry. DC voted 90% Kerry. Manhattan 82%. SF 83%. I defy anyone to find me one county Kerry won 99% of the vote.
The commentary I’ve seen on the election results so far has all been about how the ‘religious right’ won the election for Bush. But look at the blogosphere. Prominent pro-Bush blogs there would include InstaPundit, LGF, Belmont Club. The first two are quite secular, and Belmont Club appears to have a stronger affinity for Tolkien than for King James. So what’s the story here? Is there a secular pro-Bush tendency that’s being underreported?
Yes, Mitch, you’re right but I don’t think it’s that secular - the war on terror has spawned a religion all of its own.
Junius-
It is hard to tell without the state lines, but I think that red swath includes a lot of the Piedmont region, and that there’s a lot of purple and blue in the uplands, as well as red.
Keith-
County size in the US vaies greatly. Not with population as such but with when the area was first settled. So in general as you go further west, the size of counties increases.
Hmmm. It looks like China on acid.
I’ve asked to see his data set, so I can do some analysis of my own.
I suspect it may be some kind of tipping point phenomena; That when the percentage of “tolerant” Democrats gets over some critical value, they make life for the minority of Republicans so hellish that they all flee. Manhattan and D.C. are never going to go 99% Democratic, because no matter how bad it gets for Republicans, they’ve got strong reasons to remain there.
Alternatively, I suppose there could be 400 or so counties out there where Democratic ballot fraud is just erasing all the Republican votes. ;)
Anyway, I do believe that graph, barring some evidence that there’s a mistake. After all, how else to explain the Democratic Underground?
“Clever algorithm” indeed. Try a Russia overlay.
Junius — I looked at some results from eastern Kentucky. Harlan County was 60% Bush, and Pike was 52 Kerry. Both counties are more than 95% white, and white people nationally went 58% Bush, so Harlan is pretty typical of white people, while Pike is much more democratic than white people natinally.
Looking at the map, you’d have to think that the Democrats have some serious diversity issues to deal with. their heartlands are so overwellmingly dmocrat that its probably likely that many of their members have never even met a republican. They’re therefore going to have more than a little difficulty prususading them to vote any other way.
does anyone have a histogram that is coloured with the same scheme as the map? it would help tie up whether the two are consistent (for example, it’s difficult to understand what the solid red areas on the map are - presumably the colour scheme is red of 80% or higher republicans? a shaded histogram would show this).
I live in a Blue county (Multnomah, Oregon). Hard as I try, I meet LOTS of Republicans, but I regret it.
Microanalysis of country results can be a can of worms. My home town was 50/50, the two counties it’s in were 60/40 Bush. Town population is 1400, so it asn’t really an urban/rural split. No idea why. A group of very similiar counties 50 miles South all voted for Kerry. No idea why there either.
“The commentary I’ve seen on the election results so far has all been about how the ‘religious right’ won the election for Bush. But look at the blogosphere. Prominent pro-Bush blogs there would include InstaPundit, LGF, Belmont Club. The first two are quite secular, and Belmont Club appears to have a stronger affinity for Tolkien than for King James. So what’s the story here? Is there a secular pro-Bush tendency that’s being underreported? “
The blogosphere is grossly unrepresentative, is what’s going on.
I mean, if you took a poll on gay marriage in the blogopshere, it would be approved overwhelmingly. That wouldn’t even be representative of Massachusetts’ attitudes on it, let alone the country.
and how about making the y axis of that histogram number of votes rather than number of counties?
You know what might be skewing the “county” results? All six New England states—New Hampshire, Vermont, Rhode Island, Maine, Massachusetts, Connecticut—have what we call “wall to wall” incorporation. Everyone is in a village, town/township, or city, so the county provides fewer services and is a less important unit of government than elsewhere. And they report their election results by TOWN, not by COUNTY.
99% is still weird though. I’d be 90% easily enough, but 99? Even Cambridge & Somerville Mass. have 15% or so Republicans.
Maybe intense racial segregation in certain parts of the country—either central cities or counties in the south—is a better explanation. And give me a break with the “liberals make life a living hell so everyone else must flee” explanation.
Do the 99% Democrat counties have anything to do with gerrymandering/boudary reform?
Danny is right. Their county-level data must be screwed up. A quick look at Dave Leip’s site shows ZERO counties with Kerry over 90% much less 99%. Kerry won only ten counties with over 80% (San Fran, Bronx, NY, Phil, Prince Georges, DC, Macon Al, Claiborne MS, Jefferson MS, Shannon SD). Bush won 15 counties with over 80% of the vote in Utah alone. This, of course, doesn’t say anything about voter concentration, just that Bush dominates in rural areas with small counties where by random variation you get more lopsided results. If you divided up the Bronx or San Francisco into 500 vote segments, you’d get plenty of Kerry over 90%.
I was about to make the same point. I think the data is just wrong. I would certainly buy that there are more 90-10 or 80-20 Democratic counties than Republican counties, and that would explain the preponderance of red & also contribute to the explanation of why we do worse in the House than the Senate when it seems like the opposite should be true. (Redistricting is also part of the explanation, obviously.)But the data just looks wrong.
It does seem like something is wrong. This is being discussed over at MetaFilter (by way of someone seeing it here), and there’s skepticism there, too. Here’s what I wrote there (since it’s long and it would stupid to quote myself).
Also: I question their bar chart and the conclusions they draw related to it. But the cartogram seems fine, doesn’t it?
This would look so much better if it was done in Excel :-)
The shape of the cartogram is fine, but the colors, if they are using the same source data is are wrong. Besides, it’s a small, small world. Everybody knows a republican. The bar chart and the explanation (decided and divided) must be a joke.
Surely Katherine is right and we’re talking about overwhelmingly black counties.
Since the 307 county bit met with such skepticism, we rechecked it. Unfortunately, it was due to a bug in one of our programs. (It got confused by county names with spaces in them.) I’ve updated my post to reflect this.
The maps were produced by a separate program, not subject to that bug, and those results are right (so far as we can tell). Anyone who wants the data, please get in touch.
Links are down, but people are trying to draw the conclusion that it’s the Democrats who are insular and xenophobic?
People from the hinterlands lecturing the city dwellers about cultural and political diversity?
Please.
No matter how many votes you get or how much data you skew, up is not down.
Links are down, but people are trying to draw the conclusion that it’s the Democrats who are insular and xenophobic?
People from the hinterlands lecturing the city dwellers about cultural and political diversity?
Please.
No matter how many votes you get or how much data you skew, up is not down.
my guess at the moment is his program turned ‘no votes’ (0/0) into ‘100% for Kerry’, and he fetched the data when lots of counties hadn’t reported in yet.
I just fetched and parsed the data myself from USA Today. there are 3 counties/districts more than 90% for Kerry, 1 with no report yet, 5 reporting no votes (small townships in Maine), and 10 more than 90% for Bush.
Pretty work, though a Blue-Yellow or Red-Green color pattern would give a better visual result in terms of accuracy (red-blue creates artificial boundry impressions).
Still, Red-Blue is very pretty.
is there really so much more red than blue? I think there may be an optical illusion because the red (almost) all connects up and the blue doesn’t.
How about a representation that adjusts for wealth? I’d be curious to know the relative percent of GNP produced by red vs. blue states. Handy in case states’ rights catches on.
Since we are actually a Representative Republic using the Electoral College as our method for determining the Executive, shouldn’t we use congressional and senatorial districts as our allocation method, not states or counties? Actually I suppose the top map is the best since most states use the “winner-take-all” method for counting electors. But the districting method would be interesting to see.
I would assume, using the composition of the House and Senate as a proxy, that distributing electoral college votes in that manner, (Not a bad idea, IMO, so long as it were adopted by amendment to avoid coordination problems.) Bush would still have won, perhaps by a somewhat larger margin. Winning by huge margins in urban areas may be impressive as heck, but it seriously hurts your representation in the House.
Here’s a list of states listed with the percentage of graduate degree holders, color coded to show which candidate they voted for in the 2004 elections.
The list is from: http://channels.netscape.com/ns/homerealestate/package.jsp?name=fte/smartestpeople/smartestpeople&floc=wn-np
Election results were from: http://news.yahoo.com/electionresults
1. Washington, D.C.: 23.6 percent (Kerry)
2. Massachusetts: 14.5 percent (Kerry)
3. Maryland: 14.1 percent (Kerry)
4. Connecticut: 13.7 percent (Kerry)
5. Virginia: 12.9 percent (Bush)
6. New York: 12.6 percent (Kerry)
7. Vermont: 12.3 percent
8. Colorado: 11.5 percent (Bush)
8. New Jersey: 11.5 percent (Kerry)
10. New Mexico: 11.0 percent (Bush)
11. Illinois: 10.6 percent (Kerry)
12. New Hampshire: 10.5 percent (Kerry)
13. Washington: 10.1 percent (Kerry)
13. California: 10.1 percent (Kerry)
15. Rhode Island: 9.9 percent (Kerry)
16. Alaska: 9.8 percent (Bush)
17. Oregon: 9.5 percent (Kerry)
18. Minnesota: 9.3 percent (Kerry)
19. Delaware: 9.2 percent (Kerry)
20. Kansas: 8.9 percent (Bush)
20: Missouri: 8.9 percent (Bush)
20. Pennsylvania: 8.9 percent (Kerry)
23. Hawaii: 8.8 percent (Kerry)
24. Florida: 8.5 percent (Bush)
25. Michigan: 8.3 percent (Kerry)
26. Arizona: 8.2 percent (Bush)
27. Texas: 8.0 percent (Bush)
28. Georgia: 7.9 percent (Bush)
28. Utah: 7.9 percent (Bush)
30. Maine: 7.8 percent (Kerry)
31. North Carolina: 7.7 percent (Bush)
31. South Carolina: 7.7 percent (Bush)
31. Indiana: 7.7 percent (Bush)
34. Ohio: 7.6 percent (Bush)
35. Montana: 7.5 percent (Bush)
35. Kentucky: 7.5 percent (Bush)
35. Alabama: 7.5 percent (Bush)
38. Nebraska: 7.4 percent (Bush)
39. Wisconsin: 7.2 percent (Kerry)
39. Wyoming: 7.2 percent (Bush)
41: Idaho: 7.1 percent (Bush)
42. Tennessee: 7.1 percent (Bush)
43. Louisiana: 6.7 percent (Bush)
43. North Dakota: 6.7 percent (Bush)
45. West Virginia: 6.6 percent (Bush)
46. Oklahoma: 6.5 percent (Bush)
46. Arkansas: 6.5 percent (Bush)
48. Iowa: 6.3 percent (Bush)
49. South Dakota: 6.1 percent (Bush)
50. Nevada: 5.9 percent (Bush)
51: Mississippi: 5.8 percent (Bush)
Here’s a bright idea… why doesn’t every person in the US have one vote with which they can vote for a single presidential candidate? Thus neatly eliminating the electoral college system, and giving everyone equal say. This has the handy side effect of the person winning most of the votes being the person who actually gets elected…
If you’d like to look at election data against a wide range of other socioeconomic and even environmental data, check out the tools and data I’ve made available here:
http://www.personal.psu.edu/acr181/election.html
No cartograms at the moment, but we do provide a fully interactive visualization environment that you won’t see elsewhere. Also, I have a link to the database I created, so you can check it out and use it yourself.
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review