Not suprising but quite interesting. Naturally the length of the bars is a bit odd to my way of thinking … since Chicago is much more dense looking than NYC – and I don’t think that’s quite correct… 😀
Perhaps they should have scaled it by actual margin of votes, if they’re going to color it just blue and red, rather than purple. But now I’m just getting extra picky.
I like how in the original one you can see Staten Island as a little red dot in between a bunch of blue counties, but in this one it’s hidden by the north Jersey counties.
While the maps are cool and all, would you mind LJ-cutting them so they don’t make people’s friends pages super-wide and annoying to scroll?
I realize I am being super-picky here.
i prefer the maps to NOT be lj-cut. just registering my vote – i like to scroll through everything without clicking.
it takes much less effort to just hit *page down* again if i don’t want to see the map.
and, not sure if you’ve seen the population density map floating around?
it’s in one of my lj threads. if you want i can search for it.
Rather than scale the intensity by population density, here’s a map that uses the third dimension to represent population density. The results aren’t all that surprising:
http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results2004_lg.jpg
Not suprising but quite interesting. Naturally the length of the bars is a bit odd to my way of thinking … since Chicago is much more dense looking than NYC – and I don’t think that’s quite correct… 😀
Perhaps they should have scaled it by actual margin of votes, if they’re going to color it just blue and red, rather than purple. But now I’m just getting extra picky.
I like how in the original one you can see Staten Island as a little red dot in between a bunch of blue counties, but in this one it’s hidden by the north Jersey counties.