Editing 1939: 2016 Election Map
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
| Latest revision | Your text | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
The title text repeatedly attempts and fails to spell the term {{w|choropleth map}}, a map that uses shading or colors to show information about a geographic area. A choropleth map for elections has many shortcomings. For example, many large Western states have small populations and thus don't make much difference to the electoral vote count, but look like a broad swath of red or blue on the map. The map overall can have the appearance of being very red or very blue, suggesting to the eye an overwhelming victory, when in fact the election may be extremely close. Donald Trump has [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/heres-the-electoral-map-president-trump-gave-reporters.html repeatedly] [https://twitter.com/TreyYingst/status/862669407868391424/photo/1 emphasized] how red the map appears, especially when broken down by county, even though he actually lost the popular vote. In a speech on June 21, 2017, he said, "And those maps, those electoral maps, they were all red. Beautiful red." | The title text repeatedly attempts and fails to spell the term {{w|choropleth map}}, a map that uses shading or colors to show information about a geographic area. A choropleth map for elections has many shortcomings. For example, many large Western states have small populations and thus don't make much difference to the electoral vote count, but look like a broad swath of red or blue on the map. The map overall can have the appearance of being very red or very blue, suggesting to the eye an overwhelming victory, when in fact the election may be extremely close. Donald Trump has [http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/04/heres-the-electoral-map-president-trump-gave-reporters.html repeatedly] [https://twitter.com/TreyYingst/status/862669407868391424/photo/1 emphasized] how red the map appears, especially when broken down by county, even though he actually lost the popular vote. In a speech on June 21, 2017, he said, "And those maps, those electoral maps, they were all red. Beautiful red." | ||
| − | In this cartoon, [[Randall]] seems to be pointing out the shortcomings of the choropleth map (or perhaps this overall red-state/blue-state mentality). His map shows more clearly the small impact of the low-population states, as well as how combination of the winner-take-all system with the typical election maps fails to show the sometimes large number of opposition votes in a given state. This map also combines all third-party or independent candidate into one type of marker (green, likely | + | In this cartoon, [[Randall]] seems to be pointing out the shortcomings of the choropleth map (or perhaps this overall red-state/blue-state mentality). His map shows more clearly the small impact of the low-population states, as well as how combination of the winner-take-all system with the typical election maps fails to show the sometimes large number of opposition votes in a given state. This map also combines all third-party or independent candidate into one type of marker (green, likely for {{w|Green Party in the United States|the Green Party}}), making it clear that a substantial number of votes went to these candidates. |
A {{w|cartogram}}, also referenced in the title text, is a map that changes the size, and sometimes shape, of a region based on population or some other metric. Like a choropleth, these maps also have many shortcomings, the most obvious being the distortion required for the maps to work sometimes making it difficult to tell what and where the region actually is. Many versions of cartograms use squares to represent each region, with the size of the square corresponding to the metric measured. Often, it's easier to find specific places on these square maps. | A {{w|cartogram}}, also referenced in the title text, is a map that changes the size, and sometimes shape, of a region based on population or some other metric. Like a choropleth, these maps also have many shortcomings, the most obvious being the distortion required for the maps to work sometimes making it difficult to tell what and where the region actually is. Many versions of cartograms use squares to represent each region, with the size of the square corresponding to the metric measured. Often, it's easier to find specific places on these square maps. | ||
A similar map was actually used during the 2016 election [https://ig.ft.com/us-elections/results by the Financial Times] ([https://www.ft.com/content/3685bf9e-a4cc-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1 discussed here]). It made similar use of colorless states for geographic information and color in proportion to population for electoral information. However, the FT map is based on the electoral college, not the popular vote. It in turn is similar to a 2013 map used [https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/interactive/2013/sep/06/australian-election-results-map by The Guardian] for the 2013 Australian election ([https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2013/sep/06/better-election-results-map discussed here]). Other compromise maps of geographic and electoral information exist, such as maps of geographically accurate but re-scaled states: a 2016 election example [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectorScaledUS2016.svg is here], indirectly inspired by [https://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9178979/united-states-population a similar vox.com map]. | A similar map was actually used during the 2016 election [https://ig.ft.com/us-elections/results by the Financial Times] ([https://www.ft.com/content/3685bf9e-a4cc-11e6-8b69-02899e8bd9d1 discussed here]). It made similar use of colorless states for geographic information and color in proportion to population for electoral information. However, the FT map is based on the electoral college, not the popular vote. It in turn is similar to a 2013 map used [https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/interactive/2013/sep/06/australian-election-results-map by The Guardian] for the 2013 Australian election ([https://www.theguardian.com/world/datablog/2013/sep/06/better-election-results-map discussed here]). Other compromise maps of geographic and electoral information exist, such as maps of geographically accurate but re-scaled states: a 2016 election example [https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:ElectorScaledUS2016.svg is here], indirectly inspired by [https://www.vox.com/2015/8/19/9178979/united-states-population a similar vox.com map]. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Shortly after the election Randall made [[Sad_comics|several comics]] that could indicate his emotions regarding the result, but references to the election have become fewer and farther apart. | ||
With a stick figure representing 250,000 votes, Trump would have exactly 251.918544 stick figures and Clinton would have exactly 263.37844 stick figures according to the [https://splinternews.com/here-is-the-final-popular-vote-count-of-the-2016-electi-1793864349 final results]. The map shows 252 Trump stick figures and 264 Clinton stick figures, meaning Randall used ceiling rounding instead of conventional rounding, which would have shown Clinton with one fewer stick figure. | With a stick figure representing 250,000 votes, Trump would have exactly 251.918544 stick figures and Clinton would have exactly 263.37844 stick figures according to the [https://splinternews.com/here-is-the-final-popular-vote-count-of-the-2016-electi-1793864349 final results]. The map shows 252 Trump stick figures and 264 Clinton stick figures, meaning Randall used ceiling rounding instead of conventional rounding, which would have shown Clinton with one fewer stick figure. | ||
