The problem with this analysis is that we do not elect presidents based on the area of a state but on a state's population. How the voted was apportioned according to population can be more easily seen using a cartogram, a map in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population.
You can also do this by breaking down the vote by county. Apparently USA Today used this map to say that the Republican's had wide support.
But when you use a cartogram to skew the size of counties according to their population the degree of support for Bush is put into better perspective.
1 comment:
A two color map is fundamentally a vehicle for misinformation. Shit, even a stop light has three colors, not to mention arrows, blinking lights, strobes.
And then there is the actual color: red? blue? why?
Besides, if I'm an organic farmer in buttfuck Iowa, population 6, I rather resent being ruled by people staked one on top of each other 80 stories high packed in closets telling me what do to. What the hell do they know?
You know what a red state is: where you go to jail if they don't like the way you look. A red place in the country is dangerous and so is a blue place. The notion that that danger extends statewide is terrifying.
I don't mind so much that Kerry lost, but that he did not lose "daring greatly". I think Barry Goldwater lost on principle.
Post a Comment