-------- 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
|