[jeffbee]

If you are going to insist on showing counties, why not also show boroughs of Alaska, and at their realistic sizes? If you do this the usual "OMG red land" depiction of 2016 gets flipped on its head, because the vast and empty regions of Alaska voted for Clinton.

If you want to argue against showing the boroughs of Alaska because nobody lives there, then we need to talk about all of those empty divisions of the lower 48, too.

[mygo]

Thanks for the comment. Yep Alaska was a tough one. Although Alaska is separated by boroughs, their voting data is not. Researchers come up estimates for how each borough likely voted, but there can be different estimates depending on the methods used. Because of this, it felt more accurate to go with the concrete data that we had, even if it was not at the borough level. Although, I think there is merit to the argument that borough estimates should be used, even if they may not be accurate down to the last recorded vote.

[jeffbee]

I think your map appropriately deemphasizes Alaska according to its near-complete absence of voters. My remark was addressed more toward the organizations who insist on going with the bright-red/bright-blue county map.