Thursday, November 04, 2004

The US, Electoral Map (proportional)

Mad mapping Thursday continues, via Ben Werschkul of the NY Times, comes this proportional Electoral College map of the United States.


Each square equals one electoral vote (changes your perspective a bit, huh?)


The map at the Times site is interactive, so as you roll your mouse over each state, the actual total votes show up . . .

Election Results
Ben Werschkul
New York Times, November 4, 2004

Posted at 09:05 PM in Politics | Permalink


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The US, Electoral Map (proportional):

» The US, Electoral Map (proportional) from BOPnews
via Ben Werschkul of the NY Times, comes this proportional Electoral College map of the United States. Each square equals one electoral vote: The map at the Times site is interactive, so as you roll your mouse over each state,... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 4, 2004 9:08:30 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 1:20:01 PM

» red state, blue state from rants and ramblings
Ever since the election, there have been a ton of stories in the media about "red states vs. blue states," with regard to the results of the most recent presidential election and what the pundits and critics believe those results... [Read More]

Tracked on Nov 29, 2004 1:09:42 AM


Well, it's a pretty good map but some of it is wrong. Maine splits it's votes.

Posted by: Cody | Nov 6, 2004 12:43:52 PM

Land mass is not votes and any map whose purpose is to honestly represent how the states are voting MUST be based on population.

Although they are better than geography-based maps, even maps that represent electoral votes instead of population are misleading. The electoral college gives a distinct advantage to the less populous states.

This election is not over (see the "We Do Not Concede" declaration at

We need to finish what we started, and do every thing in our power to ensure that the the appointment of the electors from EVERY state reflects the will of the voters in that state.

I don't want to shift attention from the task at hand, but one of the things we will need to shift our attention to next year is the Red/Blue map problem. I think a robust campaign (catchy name for it anyone?) will be needed to extract a pledge from every major news organization that they will show the real picture -- the population-based picture -- and only the real picture. Whether they are representing the winner of states, or the winner of counties within a state, the picture must be population-based.

Posted by: Patty | Nov 9, 2004 10:51:45 AM

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

Posted by: KomradeKyle | Nov 10, 2004 2:50:43 AM

Komrade Kyle it is good to see you that you are doing your part to help bring America back together after such a devicive election.

You are quite reminicient of another uniter not a divider I know of.

Posted by: Mike | Nov 11, 2004 4:21:29 PM

Patty: You're right, land mass is not votes, but neither is population the key to becoming president - except as it relates to the individual states. It's all about the Electoral College. I would maintain that a map weighted by Electoral College votes is a more accurate graphic representation of the election than a map based only on population, after all we sometimes elect presidents that do NOT win the popular vote... It is actually misleading for the news reporting agencies to even bother with the popular vote totals, all that counts is the way the electoral college votes fall. Based on the number of voters in individual states this year, it would have been possible for one candidate to have had 83,000,000 votes in the 39 least populous states garnering 267 EC votes and lost the election while the winner had only 32,000,000 votes in the 11 most populous states, getting 271 EC votes. It's all about the Electoral College, not about the popular vote.

Sure it might be interesting to know what the popular vote totals are, or even speculate about the way things would change if we elected our presidents that way, but we don't ... and we never will. It would take a constitutional amendment, and the Senate will never pass it.

(Of course, all those maps showing the land mass -- particularly by county -- in Red or Blue were just silly -- you would think we were electing our president based on who had the most acreage).

Posted by: Will | Nov 11, 2004 5:00:18 PM

I understand it's a nation of people not rocks and trees. Each side does it's best to make the other look bad. The reimagined proportional map of the US electorate showing a different country than the one I live in should make those that voted in the 48% cope with the loss and feel much better in the short term. It was indeed a close election. However it smells of the politically correct, liberal socialist professor, history rewriter wannabe that makes me cringe. Give the man his due ! He won ! An Expressionist’s painting might get a good review at an art show but this kind of exercise smacks of at best denial and at worst an effort to diminish a second term that hasn’t even begun. It belongs next to Michael Moore’s Jesusland map in a circular file cabinet of bad medicine.

Posted by: Donald Fievet | Nov 12, 2004 10:18:57 PM

Has there been a map made that would show how the electoral votes would have been awarded if by district. If so where can I find it. Thank You.

Posted by: Vernon R. Hastings | Dec 2, 2004 4:23:48 PM

perhaps the outcome would now be a little bit different in light of the recent events of the hurricane?

Posted by: jill | Sep 4, 2005 11:16:49 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.