Log in

No account? Create an account
Cartograms - Chaz Meyers [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Chaz Meyers

[ website | chazmeyers.com ]
[ profile | view profile ]
[ archive | view archive ]

[Links:| chazmeyers.com Twitter ]

Cartograms [Nov. 6th, 2004|01:00 pm]
Chaz Meyers
I haven't written my thoughts on the election, and I do not plan on doing so. Grief is a personal thing. ;-)

However, this is interesting.

I'm going to assume that everyone's seen the "Purple Map", which shows how red and blue each state really is by mixing the two. (For those of you who are color-challenged, red + blue = purple.)

Although that does more appropriately show how close this election was, it still looks like Wyoming has as much clout as New York. The page I linked to above shows cartograms which warps the counties so they are proportional to their population in both purple and red-blue style maps.

[User Picture]From: tomas360
2004-11-06 11:02 am (UTC)
what if someones color blind?

huh Chaz?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: skecherod
2004-11-06 01:28 pm (UTC)

Well, not lol to colorblind people. That's sad.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2004-11-06 07:12 pm (UTC)
They get to cry. Because Jesus doesn't love them.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: catch2002
2004-11-06 01:12 pm (UTC)
how could wyoming have more clout than NY when wyoming has 3 electoral votes and NY has 31?
(Reply) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2004-11-06 07:12 pm (UTC)
Wyoming doesn't have more clout. When you look at the normal red-blue map, there's a huge block of red land representing states with few electoral votes. Because of this, when you just glance at the normal map, it looks like much more of a landslide. The maps these guys produced warps each county so their size is relative by their population, not their physical boundaries. This makes places with high population, such as CA, the New England states, and Florida, huge, while you can barely see the counties in Wyoming.

Does that make more sense?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: catch2002
2004-11-06 09:53 pm (UTC)
right...that's why I was confused when you said this "Although that does more appropriately show how close this election was, it still looks like Wyoming has as much clout as New York."

anyway, the fact is W attained over 51% of the popular vote, which is more even than clinton ever attained. However, Perot in 1996 & 1992 threw that off greatly, whereas this year the electorate was so polarized by an either or choice that third parties got paltry buptkiss next to Perot's pretty nice 7-9% popular vote totals in 96 and his amazing 18% in 92. Think about that for a second...a third party guy got 18%! few recall that. Still, my point is I dont care how many of these maps I see, its clear to me that a majority of Americans prefer Bush.

Why? I blame vials of crack and Jesus.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: cpm
2004-11-07 12:23 am (UTC)
That "that" was referring to the purple map, not the first link I mentioned.

I'm not saying that those maps show anything new. I thought they were interesting just because 1) the problem itself is interesting and I was surprised that someone went ahead and did it, 2) it looks funky, and 3) it's slightly less depressing to look at than the CNN map.

Yes, I think it would be great if we had a real third party, and it's really cool that Perot was actually able to get 18%. I wasn't aware of that piece of information. However, I think that the indies are focusing too much of their energy on the White House. If your party don't have enough support to hold, say, 1/4 of Congress, I don't see how a run for president is worth the time and money.

That, and I hope that by the time a 3rd party canidate reaches critical mass, we've gotten rid of the silly 270 rule. If you have 3 or 4 people running, and the race between Republicans and Dems is close, then that's just giving the election to whoever has power in the House. Our system really isn't ready for 3rd party canidates yet. :-P
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: duckssaymip
2004-11-07 07:09 am (UTC)
Right on, little buddy. Well-spoken, and indeed, you're right that the Greeners or the Libbies or whoever need to think Senate first, THEN presidency. I just felt the need to comment, because this was a very precise, very accurate definition of the third party problem. Oh, and it would also be nice to see the third party candidates included in things like the debates. In order to get the kind of attention necessary for some votes, I think that it's key to see them on TV right next to the Repubs and the Dems. It lends a sense of legitimacy to their cause, if you know what I mean.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
From: catch2002
2004-11-07 09:55 am (UTC)
yeah...I agree...its the only reason Perot did so good..he was on debate in 92...not so in 96, but by 96 most people knew who he was.

I think the problem for indies is that first, as far as the house goes...well we all can agree you almost have to committ murder to get deelected from the house. So, you're right...Senate is the best thing to try out. However, Many times Senate races are seniority vs. new guy on the block and seniority usually wins out, even if its razor thin.

Basically...third parties are screwed when politics is run by fear and polarization...which is pretty much exactly what I would say is happening right now.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)