Monday, November 8, 2004 |
14:30 - Red states, blue states, and blowed-up states
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/
|
(top) |
Whoa. Now this is cool.
How "purple" is the country? Pretty damn purple, it seems. And pretty strange-looking.
Of course, this kind of skew is intended to give a visual representation of the election results as reflected by population, and as such it's a whole lot more sympathetic to the Democrats than other maps, especially the standard old red/blue undistorted state map. But, just as with any kind of cartography, any kind of visual representation is a distortion—you just have to figure out what kind of projection gives the least misleading results.
As best I understand it, the point of the electoral college is to make the election depend not so much on population, but on geographical regions' collective wills, regardless of how populous those regions are. Just as the Senate overstates the importance of sparsely populated states by giving each one two Senators, the House—whose representation is wholly population-based—overstates the impact of populous regions with respect to rural areas. Advocates of a pure popular-vote system would seem to have the interest of fundamental democracy at heart, but there's more to representation than the number of votes a state can cast: there's also the desire to give a farming town of 1,000 a voice that can be heard amid the clamor of cities of millions. So rural areas' importance has to be overstated beyond their raw population numbers.
Hence the electoral college, which gives each state a "weight" based mostly on population, but not quite—the number of Senators and Representatives for each state added together. Some states' importance is barely affected by this (California, New York); others' is as much as doubled (Wyoming, Alaska).
So cartograms like the ones presented at this site are useful, but they're not actually the most accurate representation of electoral will, from the perspective of someone trying to advocate for the overrepresentation of rural areas in the same way that the Senate aims to balance the influence of the House. At one extreme of the axis of interpretation is to show each state according to its population or its electoral vote count, as these cartograms do; at the other extreme is to use the flat geographic map we're all used to. The reality of the nation's will, as designed to be represented by the architects of the electoral college, is somewhere in the middle.
Via James A., writing from Australia, who says:
I'm still seeing similarities between Bush's win and Howard's win a month before. Howard's win was put down to his promise/scare campaign to keep interest rates lower than they would be under Labor, which won him the outer-suburban new homeowner vote, while Labor campaigned on a bunch of "values" issues, including betraying the timber workers union in Tasmania (Labor being the traditional party of the workers and unions) which lost the party two seats in that state alone, but did cement its hold of the inner-cities. However, the "middle australia is stupid" meme didn't get much play here, unlike in the US, which implies the US Dems are not going to be electorally competetive for some time.
Not if it keeps on getting worse now that the election's over.
|
|