Reddish-Purple States
Posted on November 06th, 2004 in Election04, Media Bias
Even the "blue states" had a lot of "red counties."
The old media are trying to figure out how George W. Bush won. This map makes it even clearer. The only places Kerry won were in and around major cities. For example, a close look at the Pennsylvania map shows Kerry won Philadelphia and Pittsburgh, but Bush won the center of the state. Because the two major cities contain most of the population, Kerry won the entire state.
I didn’t vote for Bush, I voted for Badnarik. If we had an instant runoff election in this country, Bush would have been my second choice. I can see why so many people voted for him. I loath John "Waffles" Kerry.
Tags:
This post has 9 comments
November 9th, 2004
Then maybe we should let the Watermelons have their way and go Green/Communist, and all end up living in hippie communes in the woods. Then we’d all be rural and voting Republican.
November 11th, 2004
I would like, very much, to have a copy of that county map of the U.S. deppicting the “red” and “blue” counties.
Does anyone know where or how?
November 11th, 2004
You can go here to find an interactive map with all the data.
November 18th, 2004
Jason, Thanks so much for the infor. I am trying to locate a printed copy of the map. CNN will not respond to my inquiries.
November 23rd, 2004
In fact, the map above and others like it obscure a number of points–for example, the fact that we apportion electoral votes primarily based on population. Thus, numerous sparsely populated red counties don’t count for nearly as much as they might seem to from their visual impact above. IMO, a better representations can be found among population-weighted cartograms such as can found in this post at The Geomblog. Also, although the red-blue coloring does align with our winner-take-all electoral process, it doesn’t say much about the real state of the nation. Again, the various alternative color schemes found on the Geomblog and elsewhere are worth looking at for an arguably more clear picture.
December 1st, 2004
Such maps blie the fact that completely uninhabited counties (i.e. the mojave desert) look larger than New York city (which doesn’t even show up). The point of elections is not land mass, but people. One person. One Vote. Would it be a better map if someone claimes antarctica or the oceans?
I suggest this link by Robert Vanderbie regarding Election 2004 Results
or my own at Regading this question and who really lives in these red areas
December 1st, 2004
What I mean to say is that the election is within 1%. Maps looking like it is more than that are on their face a misrepresentation.
Get real folks, the country isn’t 90% republican.
People who live in cities are not less valid than someone who’s nearest neighbor is 10 miles away. In fact I’d say they are much much less valid. Most of the country lives in cities, and that is where most of the influence should be, in a democracy that is.
December 1st, 2004
Let’s not forget that 88% of germans voted for hitler too….
December 2nd, 2004
Oh, My! Another Bush = Hitler reference. How original.
Trackbacks