But I need to get over it first.
I also finally found what I’ve been looking for and can maybe read a little less news. What is it? A cartogram of the United States based on population showing the election results in the usual striking red and blue. I also wanted a county by county version of the same. I just couldn’t abide by that big red map with the tiny bits of blue on either end. Why should Wyoming count so much more than Rhode Island, it may be huge, but no one lives there. I want to see a map that looks like the near 50-50 split that the election actually was.
Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman at the University of Michigan have answered my prayers (google searches). The typical election map looks like the one below, lots and lots of red. What these researchers have done is to shrink or expand individual states based on their population. This gives a truer picture of the popular vote than a map based on land mass, which doesn’t really figure into the equation.
Then next thing I wanted was basically the same data, but on the county by county level. Why? Because my first reaction is to say fuck the south and contemplate cecession, but then I noticed the tip of texas was blue. What? No, really, there are parts of Texas that vote blue. Parts of every state that vote blue except Utah and Oklahoma.
So what is all this analysing about? I guess it is grieving really, I had higher hopes for my fellow Americans despite all likelihood. I would still like to see the difference between a cartogram based on population and one based on electoral college votes. Maybe one superimposed over the other with enough space between states to make individual comparisons. I guess I’m wondering how broken this system is, I’ve read that it weights more heavily rural votes than urban votes. Michael, Cosma, and Mark, can I have that too?