County-level 2008 election results as 3D maps
By William M. Hartnett on Nov 10, 2008 in CAR, featured, geekery
Mapping election results was one of my favorite tasks when I was The Palm Beach Post’s computer-assisted reporting specialist. I might not work in the newsroom anymore, but I still have the election-mapping bug. Thanks to Derek Willis, who posted county-level results from the 2008 presidential election in The New York Times Data Visualization Lab, I’ve been messing around with some 3D maps in good old fashion proprietary desktop GIS software. (So 2004!) Click any of the maps below to see the original 2,000-pixel-wide images.
Here’s how Barack Obama did. The four color ranges represent, from light to dark and in simple quartiles, the percentage of total votes Obama received in each county. Height shows the number of votes Obama received.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
Here’s how John McCain did. Again, four color ranges representing share of votes, and height showing the number of McCain votes.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
Compare those maps to their equivalents from the 2004 presidential election. John Kerry in blue, George W. Bush in red.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
The next two are slightly more complicated. I’m not convinced they actually work terribly well, but I made them, so here they are. The first shows the difference between Obama’s 2008 performance and Kerry’s in 2004. There are six color ranges that represent the percentage difference between the number of votes received by Obama and Kerry. Three red shades represent declines from 2004 to 2008. From dark to light red: -65% to -40%, -39% to -20% and -19% to 0. Three green shades represent increases. From light to dark green: 0 to +20%, +21% to +40% and +41% to +110%. Each county’s height shows the simple numerical difference in the number of Democratic votes in 2004 and 2008. A bit hard to tell in the small version of the map below, but negative values actually do dip below the, um, earth’s surface.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
And here’s the same deal comparing McCain’s 2008 performance to Bush’s in 2004. From dark to light red: -67% to -40%, -39% to -20% and -19% to 0. And from light to dark green: 0 to +20%, +21% to +40% and +41% to +56%. Anything catch your eye when you compare this map to the one above? You might have to look carefully, as it’s very subtle.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
Last set. As in the first set, these are again shaded by the percentage of votes received by Obama and McCain. Four colors, simple quartiles, light is low, dark is high. But in this case height represents the difference between Obama’s total votes and McCain’s. Obviously, these maps mirror each other, but I like looking at them separately.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
And from McCain’s perspective.
(Click the map for the full-size image.)
billy | Nov 19, 2008 | Reply
this is sad. rural America has not got a chance anymore. look how red this map is. obama hardly won any counties in virginia. yet he won the state because of the yankee liberals from washington dc decided that they wanted to move a couple counties south. same in indiana, north carolina, ohio, and florida. obama can thank the minorities and the libs in these huge cities for his election. God help the rest of us through these next four years.. PALIN-2012!!!!!
William M. Hartnett | Nov 20, 2008 | Reply
Billy, my friend, the red map is red because it’s a red map. Similarly, the blue map is blue because it’s a blue map.
The bottom line is that President Obama won because more Americans voted for him. Over 8.45 million Americans, actually, not to mention 45 percent of rural and small town voters.
And Palin 2012? Weak.
zlogic | Jan 23, 2009 | Reply
Actually William, billy is right. Check out this map that uses both colors in contrast to each other in the same map
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/interactives/campaign08/election/uscounties.html
Flyover country has been forgotten.
William M. Hartnett | Jan 23, 2009 | Reply
The point of introducing a vertical axis representing the number of votes is to avoid the misleading nature of traditional two-dimensional maps, which show only the share of votes. Those maps exaggerate the importance of the vast, red but relatively unpopulated parts of the country, and disguise the importance of the compact, blue and densely populated areas.
Look at the top two maps again and notice how flat “flyover country” is in both maps. And have a look at the cartograms at this site, which also combine the number and percentage of votes in a single map.
Not a retard | Oct 18, 2009 | Reply
Billy, read the maps right you dumb redneck. Lol, no wonder you’re Palin 2012.