5 ms·

I’m not an American so correct me if I’m wrong but winning the popular vote doesn’t mean success either in US if I understand it correctly, so this wouldn’t sol

I’m not an American so correct me if I’m wrong but winning the popular vote doesn’t mean success either in US if I understand it correctly, so this wouldn’t solve the problem at hand right? U.S. Constitution doesn't require electors to follow their state's popular vote so the map would also have to reflect that for certain states.

bobthepanda 6y ago
You could still apply the same principle to electors. http://blog.apps.npr.org/2015/05/11/hex-tile-maps.html http://blog.apps.npr.org/2015/05/11/hex-tile-maps.html NPR‘s front page election map also has a map with scaled squares representing states.
- danielscrubs 6y ago
  That seems better to me than original posters map
  - eyelidlessness 6y ago
    Each provides completely different data meant to communicate different things. The point of the (first) original map communicates winning party geographically by (I believe) county. The “fixed” map communicates relative share of vote by population, because the designer rightly objects to the use of that geographical data to vastly overstate one party’s political support. The map here communicates electoral outcome. None of them is objectively “better” although one is especially misleading when misused. The “better” you’re seeking/identifying is better for an entirely different analysis than what was intended. The “fixed” version doesn’t necessarily correct any misunderstanding of the electoral system, but it certainly better presents public political distribution than either of the others. If the intent is to capture both public support and electoral outcome you actually need more axes, and probably the ability to toggle different presentations of the same data. A “better” visualization capturing the designer’s intent and yours as I understand it would present: 1. Distribution of votes by count, not by arbitrary boundaries (to capture public sentiment). 2. Weight of vote by geography (to capture electoral outcome). 3. Some way to quantify the discrepancy between 1 & 2, and ideally some additional text resources discussing the historical background behind that discrepancy and its impact on democracy.
eyelidlessness 6y ago
The national popular vote doesn’t determine the winner, but with some exceptions[1][2] it determines the electoral college votes for each state/territory. A map which shows scale and state/territory borders is a far more accurate visualization than a binary map regardless of which borders it shows. [1]: Some states split their electoral college votes, for example Maine. [2]: Recent court rulings have forbidden a previous exception (“faithless electors” who vote differently from the stipulations of their state/territory’s governing law), but that opens the possibility of the national popular vote interstate compact[3] should its 270 electoral vote criteria ever be met. [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...

bobthepanda 6y ago

You could still apply the same principle to electors. http://blog.apps.npr.org/2015/05/11/hex-tile-maps.html http://blog.apps.npr.org/2015/05/11/hex-tile-maps.html NPR‘s front page election map also has a map with scaled squares representing states.

danielscrubs 6y ago
That seems better to me than original posters map
- eyelidlessness 6y ago
  Each provides completely different data meant to communicate different things. The point of the (first) original map communicates winning party geographically by (I believe) county. The “fixed” map communicates relative share of vote by population, because the designer rightly objects to the use of that geographical data to vastly overstate one party’s political support. The map here communicates electoral outcome. None of them is objectively “better” although one is especially misleading when misused. The “better” you’re seeking/identifying is better for an entirely different analysis than what was intended. The “fixed” version doesn’t necessarily correct any misunderstanding of the electoral system, but it certainly better presents public political distribution than either of the others. If the intent is to capture both public support and electoral outcome you actually need more axes, and probably the ability to toggle different presentations of the same data. A “better” visualization capturing the designer’s intent and yours as I understand it would present: 1. Distribution of votes by count, not by arbitrary boundaries (to capture public sentiment). 2. Weight of vote by geography (to capture electoral outcome). 3. Some way to quantify the discrepancy between 1 & 2, and ideally some additional text resources discussing the historical background behind that discrepancy and its impact on democracy.

eyelidlessness 6y ago

The national popular vote doesn’t determine the winner, but with some exceptions[1][2] it determines the electoral college votes for each state/territory. A map which shows scale and state/territory borders is a far more accurate visualization than a binary map regardless of which borders it shows. [1]: Some states split their electoral college votes, for example Maine. [2]: Recent court rulings have forbidden a previous exception (“faithless electors” who vote differently from the stipulations of their state/territory’s governing law), but that opens the possibility of the national popular vote interstate compact[3] should its 270 electoral vote criteria ever be met. [3]: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Interstate_Compact https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Popular_Vote_Inters...