4 ms·

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.