Purple
Red vs. Blue have you down?
Here are some other ways of looking at the results.
By county (I don’t have time to make a picture of it, but I especially like the “popular vote by population” version of the map):
Or in subtle shades of purple:
(via BoingBoing, and Ishbaddidle)
See other map posts here, here, and here - but especially here.
UPDATE: Derek points me to this excellent NY Timesinteractive graphic (I especially like the “Vote by Population” graphic, but I didn’t have time to make a picture.):
UPDATE: Francisca points to another NY Times interactive graphic.
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
Hey, I tried to leave a comment earlier, but I guess it wasn’t working. Anyway, I have more maps now.
Firstly, (via Crooked Timber, and other places) a shaded county-by-county map.
Secondly, (via JWZ) both shaded and solid county-by-county cartograms, with the area of each county proportional to its total vote.
Now, it occurs to me that the shaded county cartogram could possibly be made still more informative by adjusting the brightness or saturation (or some similar value) state-by-state to be proportional to the electoral votes per voter, such that the average colour of the coloured part of the map could be made to match the result of the electoral college if each state returned electoral votes in the exact proportion of the popular vote in that state. (Obviously that’s not a directly useful value, but on the map it would give an idea of relative voter power.)
[…] be we should look at this as different shades of purple: . Here is a page with links to more maps of the 2004 election. This just in: Greg Palast says Kerry won. New: Interactive […]
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
An anthropologist and documentary filmmaker, 
rhabdomeric receptors
What is it about kidney stones? [via the eyes have it] First Laura had them, and then the blogroll at…