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."
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
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.
Well, since it is on the ESRI site, I would have to make the assumption that they probably used ArcInfo. After all that is their product and it can export a JPEG. However, it could be done with ArcIMS (also their product).
I have no sig, does anyone have one to spare?
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.
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.
Just realize the statistical fallacies with taking that too far. Namely, correlation does not mean causation. For instance, I would bet that Boston (where I live) has a higher IQ then the middle of nowhere in Texas. You would also see that nowhere Texas votes Republican and Boston votes Democrat. If you assume it is because of IQ, you just made a very large assumption.
Democrats are more concerned with city issues. The city issues often come at the expense more rural areas. If I live in nowhere Texas and a Democrat blathers on about welfare and the environment, he isn't speak to me. Such a person probably has minimal expense and so even if he doesn't have a job has little need for welfare. The issue with the environment is a complete non-issue when you are surrounded by nothing but clean air. A Republican talking about cutting taxes on the other hand does appeal to such a person because it might very well be one of their biggest expenses.
You also need to realize that cities inflate their IQ with college students. College students have decidedly fewer issues they have to worry about and tend to be very liberal. As a college student doing the thing that 'feels right' is far more appealing then a tax break because chances are that college student doesn't pay a significant (or any) income tax.
I am not saying that the above explanations are the correct ones, just giving an example as to why I wouldn't take the analogy too far.
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.
The only correlation I see is that the cities with the highest crime rates vote overwhelmingly democratic.
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.
As a conservative, let me tell you that I'm not racist. By-and-large, conservatives are not racist.
That we're percieved as such, however, says a *lot* about the prejudices held by those who would call us racist. To which I can only respond with, "Dumbasses, heal thyself."
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
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.
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.
1. It's not a GW thing. Neither his father, nor reagan actually shrank government. They both talked a great game and then continued to grow the fed to monstrous proportions. In fact, the slowest growth of government has occurred under Clinton in recent memory.
2. Abortion is still legal because of the supreme court. And GW wants real bad to change it. Your little comment about "primary birth control" shows that you too have been buying the RR's propaganda. Well done. There is no prohibition of moments of silence, only group prayer by state run institutions.
3. The RR inflates the anti-gay numbers dramatically. I think you understimate how many religious people are out there. If any significant proportion of non-religious people agreed with them on the issue, the numbers would be and are large.
4. They havent' succeeded at too much in the way of moral leglislation, except pushing abstinence only teaching programs and funding religious groups under the "faith based initiatives". However GW wants a CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT BASED ON MORAL ISSUES, you noticed that? Stem cells, ring a bell? You don't think these things point to a mindset of leglislating morality? Head, meet sand.
5. Intolerance is intolerance. Gays, blacks, what have you, it's all rooted in the same shit. Republicans orchestrated, among other things, tougher sentances on crack cocaine than powder cocaine (guess which demographics use which) even though crack is a LESS POTENT variety of pure cocaine. Just the first example that pops to mind.
6. The RNC has some moderates in their fold. I would vote for McCain in a heartbeat. However their policy under GW is heavily swinging to the RR's agendas, and if you can't see that by now, you are actively avoiding the obvious.
7. I did not say all republicans were racist. I said their agendas are being influenced by people who make them look racist. I guess you don't see it. It's there. I also did not say all conservatives were religious, but it is an undeniable... well, if you have any sanity or reason whatsoever... to note that the party platform has been heavily influenced to appeal to the RR. The constituency does not make the entire party, but it certainly does influence the party platform, and that is almost as bad in this case.
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.
Reagan cut things that were needed too, like alternative energy tax credits. Course it didn't bite us during his administration, but we are starting to now and it's going to get much worse very shortly. He also dramatically inflated our prison systems with his "zero tolerance" drug policies, to the point where our incarceration rates are through the roof. You may see diverting funds from social programs to guns, jails, and voodoo economic policies as a good thing. It does not, however, shrink our government. It does grow huge deficits. Deficit spending is fine during a recession. However it does need to be balanced out as well. Republicans have not demonstrated that they realize this. So you prefer to hand off massive debt to our children rather than behave responsibly, good for you.
GW is anti Roe V Wade. Your own party believes this. here, check it out: http://bush2004.meetup.com/345/ maybe you weren't at that meeting. Bitching about abortion as "primary birth control" is a straw man. Some women exist who do this I'm sure. Ask any woman who admits to having had an abortion, however, and you would know it is not a decision that is pleasant or taken lightly. It is a gut wrenching issue for women. My own mother, in fact, had one, and attempted to give me up for adoption. Luckily for my mom and I, she had a mother willing to help when she couldn't go through with it. But she couldn't have raised two children, we struggled as it was, and rather than go on welfare my mom made the choice she needed to in order to be able to actually care for the child she had. I have never in my life met a woman who had the attitude that they didn't need birth control because they could just go off and get an abortion. I have met several, however, that are not sucking off of welfare or living lives of poverty because safe abortion was an option.
"Ethical" vs "Moral" is code for the same crap; promoting the fundamentalist christian agenda as somehow morally or ethically superior to making pragmatic decisions regarding the health of our nation. Drop the semantics.
Relying on abstinence only teaching is a joke; it doesn't work, and it prevents our teens from being educated as to how they can actually protect themselves when they have sex. And they will. They have been since the dawn of time, and they will continue to do so, whether or not our society is thinking that childhood lasts longer and longer or not, puberty begs to differ with our laws.
You keep trying to say that I am calling all republicans religious. I am not. The republican platform is heavily influenced by the christians. Please keep it straight. Yes, there are atheists that agree with christian ideals, but six in ten americans identify themselves as religious, and you're trying to tell me this isn't a very significant fraction of the RNC? please.
re racism; no, the RNC did not force blacks to use crack. They noticed that blacks were using crack, and upped the sentences on it, when in fact it is less potent then the cocaine GW was using at Yale. Please explain to me why this made sense, since obviously there wasn't a racial component involved. Your computer crime analogy is another straw man; if all blacks used macs and whites used PC's, and computer crime on macs were punished more severely, then the analogy would hold true. If cocaine had been upped like crack, it would have at least been fair.
The "american people" you refer to is a large select subset. The RNC base. The RNC has chosen to be the RR's mouthpiece in government. Hey, it helped elect them, and those people deserve representation even if I personally have no respect whatsoever for their politics, but do not pretend the RNC has not taken this role. You can pretty it up all you like, but you are rubbing shoulders with the Mormons and the Holy Rollers in your RNC voting block.
Telling people their unions don't matter as much as someone else's is bigoted. It really is that simple. You may think the bigotry is justified,
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.
It is not prejudiced to note overall trends.
So it's not prejudiced to say black men are more likely to be violent, since more black men are in jail for violent offenses than white men? If you find my comment prejudicial (which, really, you should, because it is), then you should realize yours is, too.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.