Election maps as quantitative, rathern geographical, devices
Let’s see a show of hands. How many of you used a map like this with your election coverage?
OK. Very common. Now, how many of you used a map like this?
While this map is not geographically accurate — not even close — it actually serves its purpose better for election coverage. Because some states have more electoral votes than others.
Go back to the map up top. You see a huge amount of red territory. In fact, it’s kind of surprising that McCain lost with that much real estate, right?
Wrong. Those western states are geographically large, but they’re simply not as populous as, say, the smaller northeastern states. And the greater a state’s population, the more electoral votes it has.
The second map is weighted to show each state in proportion to its electoral votes. You can see that about two-thirds of the 48 states shown here went blue.
And that’s about right. Obama captured 364 electoral votes. McCain earned 173… if you count Missouri. Which is technically still up in the air.
Mark Neuman, a physics professor at the University of Michigan, would go a step further. He likes this map:
Neuman created a stir four years ago with his analyis of electoral maps — I recall my intern at the time, who was doing her master’s thesis on visual journalism in election coverage — studied his work quite closely. I’m happy to see he’s provided a fresh update this season.
Neuman’s lesson is this: Don’t just run a map with election coverage. Run a cartogram. After all, if you’re going to deal in visuals, make them visually accurate.
While we’re on the subject of election maps, make sure you check out Jason Kottke’s review of all the electoral maps he found online this week. His favorite: The New York Times.
Yeah, that’s not surprising. The Times always produces clean, easy-to-read maps with a minimum of adornment and a maximum of extra features. Find the current NYT election map here.