Fun with Maps

For some of you, life has become a little less exciting since the Presidential campaign ended last week (as reported by the Onion recently).  If you are one of these people jaded with the post-election I offer, in the continued spirit of campaign analysis, more electoral maps!   Mark Newman, physics professor by day, political pundit by night, has taken the traditional red state-blue state map and contorted it (quite literally) to show the outcome from a different perspective. (click here for the results).

Alternative Map(s) #1: Population and Electoral College

This map shows what the country would look like if geography were determined by population and by number of votes in the Electoral College.  As the author points out, the maps essentially look the same (with the exception of states like Montana and Rhode Island who represent a larger share of the Electoral College than the do the total US population).

Alternative Map #2: County break-down

This map shows the vote by county and is notable for its lack of a trend.

Alternative Map #3: County break-down/population mash-up

The result is not unlike spin art, and shows that blue areas, voting for Obama, represent a larger portion of the population.

Alternative Map #4: Gradients of support

This map shows how blue, how red, and in many cases how purple counties voted.  The result is surprising and seems to indicate strong Republican support in even staunchly blue states (like California).

Alternative Map #5: Gradient/population mash-up

This map also looks like spin art and shows that the largest counties actually voted blue or purple.

If you find yourself needing more, check out NYT’s map showing electoral shifts from 2004 to 2008.