Friday, November 05, 2004

Where did their votes come from?

via Bob Drzyzgula

"I have not been able to find a copy of this graphic on the Washington Post's website, so I scanned it and put it where people could look at it. I think this is a pretty dramatic depiction of what just happened:

Click for larger graphic

Where

Posted at 07:50 AM in Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c52a953ef00d8345747f469e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Where did their votes come from?:

» Where did their votes come from? from BOPnews
via Bob Drzyzgula "I have not been able to find a copy of this graphic on the Washington Post's website, so I scanned it and put it where people could look at it. I think this is a pretty dramatic... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 5, 2004 7:54:27 AM

Comments

Dramatic, but somewhat deceiving since the maps do not account for population.

Posted by: roundtana | Nov 5, 2004 10:42:23 AM

Good information. Now overlay this with demographics (crime, age, income, eductation, etc..,) and also major media centers and see what you get.

Posted by: Brumburgh | Nov 5, 2004 4:38:07 PM

there are other maps that DO account for population in the list, however. the map showing electoral votes per state (as opposed to the specious geographical maps, as if the people of north dakota were somehow LARGER than people in New York) is quite informative.

Posted by: garth | Nov 7, 2004 3:42:09 AM

These are NOT deceptive, there is NO need to take account for population in this graph because the height represents the majority, not the number of votes for that candidate. A lot of voters don't show up on the graphs, but that's only because they are cancelled out by other voters in the same state who voted the opposite way. A candidate will win the popular vote if the sum of his majorities (i.e. the combined height of all his spikes) cancels out the sum of his opponents. The byline "where did their votes come from" is misleading, because large numbers of minority votes, especially in populous counties, don't appear. But it does show "where did their advantages come from" which is a clearer analysis. At a state level, it is very hard to look at a state with population, say, 25 million going 55%:45% to Bush but on with population 35 million going 53%:47% to Kerry and work out what the net effect of all that is! But by majority analysis, the majorities might be 700,000 in the red state and 600,000 in the blue state. If you had this on a graph it would be really easy to spot that the net effect was 100,000 to Kerry overall. If you drew a graph with 5.4M Kerry voters to 4.8M Bush voters in the bigger state with 3.2M Kerry to 3.9M Bush voters in the smaller one it would be hard to spot which of the candidates did better overall from those two states, or how much by, so telling how much that state assisted to winning the popular vote would be nigh impossible. This graph really makes it clear how much different localities contributed to each candidate in the race for the popular vote. What it does not do is show how how close the race was in those localities (a small red bar either means a big Bush victory in an almost unpopulated county or a slim one in a populous one or something in between) - a solution to this would be shading the bars in purple tones (so deep red would mean the latter and a vaguely reddish purple the latter), which would to some extent illustrate local population and take account of minority votes, but it would be at the extent of clarity.

Posted by: Michael | Nov 8, 2004 2:27:24 AM

What about, as quickly as possible, a well organized boycott of corporations that gave Bush an overwhelming amount of their contributions in 2004. I'm prepared to start this with some seed money. Is anyone else? Nothing hurts corporations like a one percent loss on the bottom line, no a .l percent loss

Posted by: David Burner | Nov 9, 2004 1:38:34 AM

How about a graph showing where citizens living under the poverty line are located? It would be interesting to see the extent to which this distribution matches Kerry's high margins.

Posted by: John Bonds | Nov 9, 2004 7:12:34 PM

So if you take away the useless, misguided, extremist, socialist, communist, naive votes of L.A. and Manhattan, you see that Kerry never stood a chance. Chicago, Detroit, and Philly are the home of the true, respected Democrats that voted from the heart, not out of hate, jealousy, or extreme ideology.

Posted by: Owsley | Nov 15, 2004 11:36:17 PM

Ha ha - jealousy and hate? C'mon - you don't even believe that (besides, how would one vote out of jealousy?). And ideology is certainly not foreign to *either* part, to be fair. I think it is demonstrative that in an election that was about national and personal security, the people living in urban centers (and so, the people most likely to be under attack by terrorists, and the people who have already lived through terrorist attacks) voted for a change of policies. The people in NYC certainly know what terrorism is about, and yet they weren't afraid of leaving behind the current administration's policies for safety. You might say that's naive, but I certainly would not call the people of that city naive after what they went through, and I would look twice at their opinion.

Posted by: Anne | Nov 16, 2004 4:33:20 AM

You know, the City of San Francisco which is perhaps the most liberal City in the United States of reasonable size is also consistently ranked as affording its residents with the highest quality of life of any City in the United States by Mercer's Quality of Life Index. Could at be that liberal dominating the political structure in San Francisco know a thing or two about how to govern? Is it the liberals who are misguided? Or is it conservatives, whose policies have been tried and failed for decades that are bringing this country down. Seriously, since FDR when have the liberals really been in charge of anything? It's been only neoconservatives, conservatives, and moderate democrats. Speaking of FDR, remember his plan worked too!

Posted by: Seth | Nov 16, 2004 8:35:24 PM

FDR's plan worked for a while. Then the Welfare reform corrected what went wrong. We should always remember that hindsight is 20/20.

Posted by: Karen | Nov 20, 2004 4:07:25 PM

I stumbled onto this thread WAY late and am sure it won't likely be read but it's a good thing that the votes of a majority spread across the whole contry won out. I mean why would it ever be good for a small region (no matter how many live there) to rule the governement of such a large contry? What is this the dark ages where a few nobles in a castle lord thier rule over the surfs spread out across the land?

Posted by: Chris | Apr 15, 2005 3:51:47 PM

How about a graph showing where citizens living under the poverty line are located? It would be interesting to see the extent to which this distribution matches Kerry's high margins.
Gary

Posted by: Gary | Jan 5, 2006 4:07:36 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.