-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: mapping of the electorate]] Date: Tue, 09 Nov 2004 14:13:14 -0800 From: Larry Cruse <[log in to unmask]> To: <[log in to unmask]> ------------------ Maps and cartograms of the 2004 US presidential election results Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman University of Michigan http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/ Larry Cruse UCSD >>> [log in to unmask] 11/06/04 01:43PM >>> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: RE: mapping of the electorate] Date: Fri, 5 Nov 2004 23:25:42 -0500 From: Boyle, Alan (MSNBCi) <[log in to unmask]> Heh, good point ... Actually, there's a good map in the NYT that tints just the significantly populated areas. Thanks for the reality check... Best, Alan -----Original Message----- From: [log in to unmask] [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Sent: Friday, November 05, 2004 3:13 PM To: [log in to unmask] Cc: [log in to unmask] Subject: Re: mapping of the electorate] Oh, please, you do not want to see county-level cartograms. No one would ever recognize them. You'd get a big blob of something -- but almost no one would be able to identify it as a map of the USA. You might be able to pick out the boroughs of New York City, as well as Cook County, IL and a gigantic Los Angeles County, CA on the Pacific, but that's about it. I think even state-level cartograms are hideous, but I can usually figure out which polygon is which state, so I tolerate them. This is not to say that population density/voter turnout is unimportant -- I think I would use hue to indicate party preference, and maybe saturation to indicate say, turnout or tabulation. Joe McCollum Knoxville, TN