Thursday, November 04, 2004

Popular Vote, Population Density

Mad mapping Thursday, final entry:

Compare this map with the Proportional US Electoral Map ; What stands out to me is how vast stretches of the Western and Southern United States -- primarily Red States -- are so sparsely populated.

These two maps reveal that this is actually quite an evenly split nation -- coastal urbanites versus heartland rural/suburbanites:


Population Density
Popular Vote, by Population
Us_map_pop_density
Click for larger graphic




Sources:
Election Results
New York Times, November 4, 2004
http://www.nytimes.com/packages/khtml/2004/11/03/politics/20041103_px_ELECT_FEATURE.html

Posted at 10:41 PM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8345741c869e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Popular Vote, Population Density :

» Popular Vote, Population Density from BOPnews
Mad mapping Thursday, final entry: Compare this map with the Proportional US Electoral Map ; What stands out to me is how vast stretches of the Western and Southern United States -- primarily Red States -- are so sparsely populated.... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 10:58:07 PM

» Culture clashes from Bruce Morlan
The recent election appears to me to be yet another clash of civilizations. The red-blue map at Essays and Effluvia shows how the real story is not red state-blue state, but rather urban and ex-urban (country).... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 9, 2004 1:17:40 PM

Comments

How can I get a really good print out of this map etc.? Otherwise, no one is going to believe me.

(When I saw the red and blue map the other day, I couldn't believe the vast red area as I knew as do you where the population actually is.)

Posted by: mageen | Nov 5, 2004 3:13:30 PM

now matter how you look at it: Kerry is still a loser!

Posted by: Komrade Kirk | Nov 10, 2004 2:51:46 AM

Kerry lost? Yes.

Repubs/Conservs doing more than exaggerating? Yes.

After the Ohio recount, Bush will likely have won by less than 60,000 votes. Had Kerry picked up Ohio, Bush would have had the popular vote, but Kerry the White House.

That is the truth the right wants to ignore, spin, and distort.

Posted by: jupiter1019 | Nov 16, 2004 6:37:10 AM

this is absolutely retarded. will you people quit your belly aching about the election. Kerry lost. Bush won. it is as simple as that. Bush won in a popular vote, so even with the electoral college eliminated, it would yield the same result. can we please cut the conspiracy theorys and the illustrated world maps? who in their right mind can say the 'world' voted for Kerry? who really cares? they don't vote. they don't pay taxes. they don't get a say so. i don't remember being asked who do i want to preside over the Czech Republic....


bottom line. we are americans. all of us. we, as a country, have elected Bush for 4 more years. quit your bitching, and try to make America better by doing something positive. quit saying the world would be better....IF....
if you really can't stomach having Bush as a president, you will have another chance to vote in 4 years. that the beauty of America....you get to keep voting.


let's all take a moment,,,,,,,,,,,and get behind our country instead of criticizing everything.

Posted by: Tom | Nov 17, 2004 11:56:22 AM

This is America, we don't have to get behind politicians we don't like. Getting behind "america" and getting behind someone who you disagree with is not the same thing. In a democracy you are expected to disent. People are getting behind their country by criticizing the people who are harming it, elected or not.

So please quite YOUR bitching. I bet you weren't so accomodating when Clinton won. I know I wasn't.

What is interesting about who voted in this election is that democrats and republicans have nearly 100% switched since the 1956 election of Eisenhower. (compare 1956 to 1964 and you'll see what I mean). This is back when the democrats were for wars such as Vietnam or Korea, and for segregation.

The people who are voting for Bush are the same people who voted against Eisenhower. Generally these include southern segregationists. When Kennedy met with Martin Luther King in 1960 Blacks moved to the democratic party and Segregationists (dixiecrats) moved to the republican party.

I think the term conservative and liberal here are misleading. The part of the republican party that bush represents is this wing. That is why so many of his values are opposite that of traditional republicans. These values are: small government (low spending), Privacy (no patriot act, random detentions), no foreign entanglements (like the trumped up war on Iraq), freedom of religion (even if you are muslim) and activist courts controlling my private life (including religion, personal morality and birth control). What is constant however is what red-states and blue-states vote for and their values.

I am personally a bit liberatarian, I want to be left alone, I don't want the government breathing down my neck, I don't want our troops invading other parts of the world without reason. That used to mean I was a republican, but now the roles are switched. I imagine that most of these "core republican voters" will eventually move to the democratic party. Likewise, those looking to establish state religion, segregation and police protection accorting to race and national origin, government intervention in states rights (gay marriage, abortion being the new issues), pro-war, will become more red.

If you want to see how red and blue states break down culturally check out This website And this is from an Ex-Republican (reborn independent)

I find the results on lynching to be the most interesting. There is an obvious connection between individuals who do not trust the government, or who lack government funding for institutions such as the police and the likelyhood they will take the law into their own hands.

Posted by: Ilir Topalli | Nov 30, 2004 12:56:05 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.