[cs702]

Fantastic work.

The final map for the US election in 2016 is both the most accurate and the easiest to understand I've seen so far:

https://stemlounge.com/content/images/2019/10/muddy_america_...

In this map, saturation and lightness indicate vote density and color indicates the winning party, in each county.

IMHO, this is the kind of map that should be used by every media outlet to show election results.

[Anon4Now]

Depends on the purpose. If you want to show the nuances, then, yes, it is effective. But, if I didn't know the results of the election, I don't think I could even take a guess looking at that map.

I don't believe there is a Grand Unified Theory of Election Maps. Use different maps to convey different facets of information.

[jefftk]

If you want the map to show you the results of the election, then a county by county map is not useful anyway. Instead you'd want to know who won each state, and how many electoral votes each state counts for (or just color the whole country by the winner).

[nostrademons]

> But, if I didn't know the results of the election, I don't think I could even take a guess looking at that map.

Like he said, "most accurate and easiest to understand". ;-)

[boublepop]

Looking at the typical blue/red state map would not allow you to know the outcome either. You might feel that way, but only because it’s always accompanied with a direct display of the outcome above or below it.

This is a better representation of the map part, not an attempt at conveying aggregated result.

[jpadkins]

you can really see the urban blue centers surrounded by grey suburbs surrounded by red exurbs. East and mid atlantic show this in several metro areas. US is not red state / blue state, but blue core / red rings.

[throwaway0a5e]

You even see the popular destinations the people from the urban areas retire to.

[dmurray]

But the county-level results aren't what's important in the election. For showing results, it makes sense to show all of Texas in red as soon as it's confirmed to have gone 50.1% to Trump, or whatever.

This map is useful in visualizing demographics and expected voter distribution. It's more valuable for showing election predictions than newsworthy results.

[munificent]

> it makes sense to show all of Texas in red as soon as it's confirmed to have gone 50.1% to Trump, or whatever.

That only makes sense if a state's area is the same as the number of electors it has, which isn't the case.

If you want to show an electoral college map, you'd show each state in red or blue, with lightness based on the number of electors the state provides.

But, obviously, the intent of a county-level map is not to show electors, it's to show something about the demographic makeup of voter preferences.

[cs702]

> But, obviously, the intent of a county-level map is not to show electors, it's to show something about the demographic makeup of voter preferences.

Exactly: The map is meant to show "where the votes came from" without distorting any shapes.

[mygo]

thank you =)

[nathancahill]

Thanks for using gray rather than purple.