Slashdot Mirror
3D Election Results Map by County
FlopEJoe writes "There are many web-based electoral maps available on the regular news sites (Electorial-vote, CNN) but this image 3d county results seemed more profound to me. Wish I had more to say about it but I don't want to cloud the discussion. I think it speaks for itself and the spin-masters should enjoy it."
Hawaii, that is one of the members of our coal^H^H^Hstates. :) /Poland
"The objective of securing the safety of Americans from crime and terror has been achieved." -- John Ashcroft
Because the peaks are due to population, this must correlate somewhat to the skyscraper distribution graph also.
What software was used?
#hostfile 0.0.0.0 primidi.com 0.0.0.0 www.primidi.com 0.0.0.0 radio.weblogs.com
In France there was a very racist party (Front National) and the people who would vote for them were on average less educated than people who voted for other parties. The FN leader, Le Pen, said it had to do with the propaganda we have in schools against the FN. Which of course wasn't believed by anyone but the people without an education.
Cool! I can see my house from here...
It's kinda funny to see my county all alone and blue on the sea of red (Travis Co,TX).
Ceci n'est pas un post.
A better looking map is at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/
Yep... let's just trash the Electoral College. We should only let the political opinion of the people who live at the spikes steer the country. Not like people outside of those spikes might have different POVs than those in the spikes, since we all know that rural and urban environments have exactly the same needs.
While most of the blue areas are located in large metro areas, this is not always the case. That blue streak that runs east-west across Alabama is an area known as the "Black Belt" and is one of the poorest most underdeveloped parts of the state.
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- Version: 3.12 GIT d? s: a-- C++++ UL++++ P++ L+++ E- W++ N o-- K- w--- O- M+ V PS+ P
Don't know if this is true or not (it looks pretty, so I'm inclined to say yeah, its true), but this map is pretty interesting.
-Vic
And you'll probably continue to see that happen, too, with a Democratic party platform of 'you're a fucktard if you don't agree with us'. Great way to try to bring the opposition to your side, too. 'You're a fucking idiot. Vote for us!' If I hadn't voted for Badnarik I would have voted for Bush partly out of spite.
::GASP!:: don't agree with you! OMFG!
Believe it or not, there *are* some people in the country that *are* intelligent, that
There were a lot of people who voted for all the wrong reasons. But there are also a large number of people who thought about the decision at hand before making it. Insulting them only distances them further from you.
Yes, IHBT, and IHL, but it bothers me when people do this shit (which isn't to say the Right doesn't do it also... another reason I voted for Badnarik). HAND.
In other words, a county shows all red even if it is 51% Bush / 49% Kerry. Just so we remember that there is a lot of red in the blue counties, and vice-versa.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
That is to say, a high population area may have 48% Republican votes and 49% Democratic votes but the entire tall bar is colored blue.
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
Check the author's sources. They prove it's a hoax that started in 2000.
That pages uses www.chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm as a source. It'll redirect you to attenuation.net/files/iq.htm. From there, you can find www.sq.4mg.com/IQschools.htm which has estimates for state IQ based on ACT/SAT tests. You'll notice that the IQs are much more evenly distributed. If you follow his link to http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm, you'll see links at the bottom to the unverified hoax IQ scores used in your chart. Someone simply updated the 2000 Gore/Bush chart for 2004.
In a democracy, the vote of the people counts.
In the Electoral College, the vote of the majority (people living in cities) is diluted to give people living in the suburbs, and Southern Slave Owners, an increased vote. Since we no longer have slave owners, it's kind of moot to continue having the Electoral College. If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll discover that the founding fathers weren't real keen on giving Joe Schmoe a vote, and if you read History, you'll find that slave owners wanted their slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for voting purposes, but had no intention of giving them the right to vote.
The point of a Democracy is that the majority of the people get to determine things. If you do anything to dilute the power of the majority (Electoral College, Aparthied, for example), then you're not living in a Democracy.
You can argue all you want about increasing the power of rural voters, but that still doesn't mean it's right -- or that it's a democracy.
Senators weren't directly elected by the people until the 1920's. Things can, do, and should change.
Kind of reminds you of pre-Communist China. Mao Tse Tung controlled the countryside and what's-his-name controlled the cities.
A fine is a tax you pay for doing wrong and a tax is a fine you pay for doing all right.
Damn Liberials!
New York City is split into several counties/boroughs, and on the map it looks like it was split up that way. There are several tall but narrow sections. Chicago and some surrounding area is shown as one huge Cook County spike.
Beer wants to be free
Sorry, but I've got one more:
:-\
Purple Mountain Majesties
America isn't really "Red" or "Blue." It's Purple.
Well, aside from Utah, anyway
Wages are earned, not given. They are earned by doing work for the value of the wage. Things really get messed up if someone outside sets the value of the wage without regard to the value of the work. Forcing companies to overpay workers at some government-set wage that has nothing to do with the work also demeans real work and turns the whole affair into a welfare program: a forced handout.
Every time the government arbitrarily sets the mininum wage to be higher, thousands of people end up losing their jobs, as it forces companies to try to get by without low-end jobs. When I point it out to people who favor the "minimum wage", the typical response is that these jobs are worthless: a poor person is better off getting nothing, as compared to getting $17,000 a year.
As long as you are arbitrarily setting wages without regard to value, why not set the minimum wage to $1,000 an hour? It will make everyone a millionaire. Why stop at a low value?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
This page is hosted by ESRI. They write graphical information systems software (gis). I think the intent of this image is to illustrate the capability of their software, not so much to illustrate the election results. Looks like using election results was just a provocative way to get someone to look at their software. I couldn't find where this is linked from on their site. You could say linking to it here is puting it out of context. I would expect to see this image in an add for their product in one of the IT rags.
Note that I do *not* think this is a good way to view the info. You'll see that I tinted the top of the bars. If I did this for all blue counties, everything would appear red. This is a very very misleading map any way you draw it. Hopefully, this is a bit less misleading than the original:
"Fixed" Map
--
Evan
"$30 for the One True Ring. $10 each additional ring!" -- JRR "Bob" Tolkien
The only correlation I see is that the cities with the highest crime rates vote overwhelmingly democratic.
This 3D map is a much more accurate reflection of the voter reality.
Now, I don't want to sound like a sore loser. Bush won fair and square. He got more votes. He secured the Electoral College. No (or neglegable) voter fraud or intimidation. Maybe if the Democrats would have put someone other than Mr. Empty Suit up, the election would have turned out different.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
And mayeb, just maybe if the founders put a democracy in place you might have a point. Were are a Federal Republic.
Since we no longer have slave owners, it's kind of moot to continue having the Electoral College.
Except that we are a Federal Republic
If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll discover that the founding fathers weren't real keen on giving Joe Schmoe a vote
Yes becuase of joe and 50 of his freinds decide to screw jane and 48 of her friends out of something, in a democracy they can. So instead they built a Represenative system with chekcs and balances.
The point of a Democracy is that the majority of the people get to determine things.
As Franklin said "Two Wolves and a Sheep voting on whats for Dinner"
If you do anything to dilute the power of the majority (Electoral College, Aparthied, for example), then you're not living in a Democracy.
Oh nevermind you do get it, we are not a democracy we are a Democratic Republic. Now here is one to wrap your head around True Democracy is like True Communism, it cant exist. True Democracy would entail every person voting on everything that would happen. Can you imagine election day, every day for things like peanut subsidies? Without a slave population (like that of ancient Athens) the citizens do not have the time to vote on every issue..
You can argue all you want about increasing the power of rural voters, but that still doesn't mean it's right -- or that it's a democracy.
It also does not mean its wrong, and yes we are not a democracy...
Senators weren't directly elected by the people until the 1920's. Things can, do, and should change.
Yup and if you want to trash the EC have fun because at least 35-40 States stand to lose power if you do. Electing senators did not affect the states (we are a federal republic) balance of power, traching the EC does.
Because the peaks are due to population
I'd say they have more to do with African American population, since 88% of them voted democratic which is by far the largest margin in any racial grouping. 88% of African Americans also live in metropolitan areas according to the 2000 census.
The Republican party must find a way to reach out to these people or at least somehow counter the perception that Republicans are racists.
You know, the first time I checked out the county-by-county maps, one thing stood out to me and I found it quite interesting. The whole time I've been seeing state-by-state maps New York has always been a "blue" state. So I figured that the majority of the state was pro-Kerry. But when you look at the county-by-county maps of New York, you see that while Kerry did get the majority of the New York votes, that geographically most of the state is actually pro-Bush.
If you look at the New York map, you see that most of the state is either pro-Bush, neutral, or weak-Kerry. The only really strong area of support for Kerry in New York State was New York City. It's a sad but true fact that one city can out-vote the rest of the state.
I think that's how Hillary Clinton was elected too. I don't know of anyone upstate who was in strong support of her (well, in the Finger Lakes region anyway. But I did see plenty of anti-Hillary signs at the time), but yet she won anyway. There weren't enough non-Hillary votes in the rest of the state to counteract the pro-Hillary votes in NYC.
It would be interesting if the electoral college could be split along districts. Like if say, the popular vote got the 2 senators votes for the state, and then each district had its representative vote the way that district voted. If that was the case, I'd think that Kerry would have had at most 10 votes in New York State for the electoral college. But considering the current system, he swept the whole state.
-Through the server, over the router, off the firewall... Nothing but 'Net!
It's an urban legend. If you track down those sources, they point to the book "IQ and the Wealth of Nations." But this state IQ data never appeared in that book (see http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/weblog/2004/05/ among others.)
Anybody who's gone near a statistics book knows it's ludicrous to think an entire state could have an average IQ that's one sigma away from nominal mean.
Moderators should be required to pass a multiple-choice test that shows they understand the moderation system. Moderation is not meant to suppress someone else's opinion, but it is being used that way.
A "Troll" is someone who intentionally posts misleading information. The Troller does not believe what he is saying.
"Flamebait" is a comment posted with an intent to start a pointless argument.
The parent comment is, "It just shows what everyone has known... that ignorant hick-country rednecks vote for Shrub."
I don't agree with the comment, but it is not a Troll or Flamebait.
I intensely disagree with the opinion in the link provided in the parent comment. However, should it have been suppressed by modding as Flamebait? If you have been reading about international affairs, you know this is the opinion of literally hundreds of millions of people:
Four more years of garbage.
Four more years of bullshit, lies, mass deception.
Four more years where the world, hopefully, will tell the damn stupid yankees to go fuck themselves in their warped country.
Four more years of those same damn stupid yankees making fools of themselves by being the terminally stupid assholes they are.
Oussama Bin Laden! the world needs you more than ever. Get your marbles together, and with a bit of imagination, you can cut the whole oil supply to the United States of America, and either bring those stupid yankees down on their knees, or make them adopt a much less ruinous way of life that is more respectful of the planet.
Go, Oussama! Go sink those oil tankers plying the sea!
Go sever that thin lifeline that keeps those stupid yankees alive!
The planet will be eternally grateful once you bring those fuckers down.
In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.
This is why a lot of liberals get stamped with the elitist tag.
Moneyed corporations, non-working 'poor' and criminal prisoners are turning productive citizens into tax-slaves.
In the Electoral College, the vote of the majority (people living in cities) is diluted to give people living in the suburbs, and Southern Slave Owners, an increased vote.
There were no suburbs when the electoral college was created, and when it was created one of the ideas behind it was to take away the voting power of slave owners The electoral college was simply a compromise between the states with a large population and the states with a small population to elect a president.
Since we no longer have slave owners, it's kind of moot to continue having the Electoral College.
That isn't why the EC was created.
If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll discover that the founding fathers weren't real keen on giving Joe Schmoe
No, they weren't. They were of the belief that you should be a land owning male to vote. Those were very different times though.
a vote, and if you read History, you'll find that slave owners wanted their slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for voting purposes, but had no intention of giving them the right to vote.
Indeed, the southern slave owners had no intentions of allowing their slaves to vote. Howevver, they wanted their slaves to have a full vote! Not three fifths of a vote! Three fifths of a vote was another compromise made between the north and the south. Most of the founding fathers were against slavery, but if they wanted to form a union with the southern states it was a necessary evil. They did not want the south to have the voting power to continue slavery forever, so the north was against the slaves being able to vote (since their masters would be the ones really voting for them) and that is how they came up with the three fifths compromise which everyone looks to today and calls 'racist' when it was in fact an example of the original desire of the founding fathers to limit the powers of the south and eventually destroy slavery.
For someone who writes things like 'if you read History' you sure have a distorted view of it.
The point of a Democracy is that the majority of the people get to determine things. If you do anything to dilute the power of the majority (Electoral College, Aparthied, for example), then you're not living in a Democracy.
We don't live in a true direct democracy where the people determine things. It's a good thing too since the majority of people are not always right. If the majority of people voted tommorow for Apartheid to be reinstated would that be right simply because it was come to in a democratic process?
So "geographically" is meaningless in this case.
Again, land does not vote. Only people vote.
So comparing the 2-dimensional areas is meaningless.
For the third time, land does not vote. So the population of NYC is out-voting the population of the rest of the state. In other words, "democracy".
Are you familiar with the term "gerrymandering"?
How about if we break it down further so that each person gets his/her "representative vote the way that" person voted? I can support that, but I cannot support a system that would be so open to gerrymandering abuses.
As things stand, I'll vote for the Democrats in every close election, like the last one (if its going to be a blow out one way or the other, I'll vote Libertarian). I find the influence of the Christian -right to be one of the scariest things facing America.
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
And just because something was written into the founding documents doesn't make it right, or appicable to todays world. After all, the Constitution had provisions for slavery in it. See Article 1, Section 2, third paragraph.
See, I can look up historical documents, too!
/. is a bunch of nerds at a million typewriters. It's not a political conspiracy determined to undermine your beliefs.
Looks to me like the population is divided by the area to get the bar height. Thus the *volume* is the population, which makes sense. Though it can still be really misleading anyway.
It would also help if they mixed the red and blue in the proportion of the votes.
These are, of course, displaying different information.
The picture you've linked to is displaying county-by-county presidential preference percentages, which is totally fascinating.
The picture in the story displays county-by-county presidential victors by population, which is also totally fascinating.
Can these guys collaborate or something? I kindof want to see the nighttime lights superimposed on the purple map.
There are no trails. There are no trees out here.
In the old days, cities were where the factories were located. In order to find work, most people came to cities like Philadelphia to find jobs, whether in manufacturing, shipping, ports, etc. When the socialist movement swept through a century ago to improve the working conditions of those workers, they were the strongest supporters, and that was handed down the generations to today's citizens.
Fast foward to today, where most of the nation's industrial work has fled the higher taxes (and tigher environmental laws) of the cities to the rural areas. The cities are now home to many social programs, such as welfare, that are harder to manage in the urban areas (economy of scale, not as efficient if population is distributed).
Modern conservatives hold the belief of independence from the state, that they want to control their own destinies and not be told what to do by the government. Over time, many conservatives have left the establishments to start their own communities farther away from those that would oppress them (with things like high taxes, underrepresentation, etc)
Education levels would be roughly equal. It is a myth that liberals are higher educated, given that they are much more socially divided than conservatives are.. you have the rich highly-educated liberals along side the poor under-educated liberals who live off of social programs. Conservatives have a more equal average education level without this social divide.
Church percentages is again harder to estimate, though I would say slightly higher in the rural areas. Massachusetts has a very strong Christian Democrat estabishment, esp around Boston & the east (see Kennedys). Also, many of the urban minority democrats in the cities also happen to be strong Baptists, they are just more willing to put aside their religious convictions for (perceived) political gain.
The rural areas represent many independent views, while the urban areas represent a few views that are spread easily through highly concentrated populations and are grossly magnified by the skewed population sizes.
While looking at a NY county map, I was wondering why there is a dark blue county (Tompkins) in the middle of the state. A quick search answered my question -- Tompkins County is the home of Cornell Univeristy. I then looked at some other states, and noticed the same thing: in Michigan both Washtenaw (Univeristy of Michigan) and Ingham (Michigan State) counties are blue. In Indiana, Monroe County (Indiana University) is one of a few blue spots. Champaign County in Illinois is relatively blue compared to surrounding counties. Dane County in Wisconsin (Univeristy of Wisconsin) is bluer than its neighbors. It still worked in Colorado (Boulder), but not in Oklahoma or Texas.
My only problem with Microsoft is the severity of bugs in their software.
Sounds like you're trying to rationalize your way out of the data. Had the education data leaned more your way, you most likely would have embraced it.
This is just my opinion, mind you.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Modern conservatives hold the belief of independence from the state
That's a nice thought and theory on why people vote that way, but if you look at how much is paid per capita in taxes vs. how much is received in federal expenditures, the people in the red states are predominantly on the receiving end of the taxes paid by the people in the blue states:
http://www.taxfoundation.org/taxingspending.html
I'd really like to see a map overlay, but it looks to me like they vote like vampires...because they certainly aren't opposed to welfare.
They also seem way too interested in controlling what happens inside other peoples' bedrooms and bodies.
Corinthians 1:18 For the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are dying, but to us who are saved it is the power of God.
The Declaration of Independence was written by Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Christian.
"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature." - Thomas Jefferson
I think what you meant to say (sans caps) is "GW wants a constitutional amendment based on religious interpretation." That to me seems like a more apt description of the position in question. There are moral arguments on both sides of the stem cell and gay marriage debates, but those have been lost in the debate.
Stem cell was a code word for abortion in this presidential race. And Americans have moved on from denying rights based on gender and skin color to denying rights based on sexual orientation.
Such is the way of national progress.
the growth in cynicism and rebellion has not been without cause