1939: "2016 Election Map"

This forum is for the individual discussion thread that goes with each new comic.

Moderators: Moderators General, Prelates, Magistrates

Kludgy
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat Aug 26, 2017 11:45 pm UTC

1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Kludgy » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:39 pm UTC

Image
Title text: I like the idea of cartograms (distorted population maps), but I feel like in practice they often end up being the worst of both worlds—not great for showing geography OR counting people. And on top of that, they have all the problems of a chloro... chorophl... chloropet... map with areas colored in.

Maps are where the the distortion is

Velo Steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Velo Steve » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:45 pm UTC

This looks more evenly distributed than I would have guessed. Even though we seem to be divided to the extreme ends of the left/right spectrum these days, as least we're not completely isolated physically.

I agree about cartograms and chloropleths (I didn't look that up so my spelling could be like Randall's). Nice ideas, but sometimes hard to grasp.

A little odd seeing this 16 months after the fact.

User avatar
cellocgw
Posts: 1897
Joined: Sat Jun 21, 2008 7:40 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby cellocgw » Mon Jan 08, 2018 4:49 pm UTC

Kludgy wrote:
Maps are where the the distortion is


Maps are where the Enemy's Gate is.
https://app.box.com/witthoftresume
Former OTTer
Vote cellocgw for President 2020. #ScienceintheWhiteHouse http://cellocgw.wordpress.com
"The Planck length is 3.81779e-33 picas." -- keithl
" Earth weighs almost exactly π milliJupiters" -- what-if #146, note 7

petercooperjr
Posts: 13
Joined: Mon Jun 19, 2017 4:12 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby petercooperjr » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:03 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:This looks more evenly distributed than I would have guessed. Even though we seem to be divided to the extreme ends of the left/right spectrum these days, as least we're not completely isolated physically.


I think that this really does give a better picture of the distribution. There are certainly plenty of "red" areas on the populous coastal states, and plenty of "blue" areas within the sparse western states, it's just that nobody cares about them during a presidential election.

It's important to keep in mind that local politics (elections to whatever town/city/etc. government your locality has, state rep. elections, and here in New England the exciting tradition of Town Meeting) often have a much higher impact on one's life than the national ones that get all the media attention. There's not nearly enough interest/funding for good journalism of really local issues, and so one tends to see coverage of things that affect much larger populations since the larger base can sell enough advertising/"newspapers"/etc. to make that journalism possible. But it's the local issues that you can (1) most directly impact yourself, and (2) often most directly impact you.

Stargazer71
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:08 pm UTC

Once again, a map that only shows half the picture.

An interesting aspect of US elections is that the makeup of the electoral college is determined by total population, while the popular vote is based on voter turnout.

This is meaningful because voters from non-swing states have less incentive to vote than those in highly competitive states. With all else being equal, *both* candidates will receive more votes from a swing state than they will from a non-swing state of equal population.

All the more reason why saying, "Here's a graph of popular vote distributed by <whatever>" ... doesn't mean squat.

(EDIT: I said that it only shows half the picture, but upon second reading, perhaps this was the purpose of the comic)

owenneil
Posts: 2
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:13 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby owenneil » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:15 pm UTC

I spent a while looking, but I give up. Where's Waldo?

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:21 pm UTC

Is it possibly intentional (and covered by approximate location within the state, either way, as a get-out) that Michigan UP has no voters marked down?

MechaMaya
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:22 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby MechaMaya » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:27 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:Once again, a map that only shows half the picture

...

(EDIT: I said that it only shows half the picture, but upon second reading, perhaps this was the purpose of the comic)


Yeah, I think that is the point. Normally we see electoral college maps but that is only the other half of the picture. He's emphasizing that this helps see the remaining half. Neither map is complete without the other. Sure the electoral college maps show which states 'won', which is important. But when you're trying to get an idea of how many voters of each side are in each region, the electoral college maps really don't help much. If only there was a way we could combine the two, and get the best of both worlds. I will hope Randall will have that figured out by the 2020 election.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6252
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby sardia » Mon Jan 08, 2018 5:56 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:This looks more evenly distributed than I would have guessed. Even though we seem to be divided to the extreme ends of the left/right spectrum these days, as least we're not completely isolated physically.

I agree about cartograms and chloropleths (I didn't look that up so my spelling could be like Randall's). Nice ideas, but sometimes hard to grasp.

A little odd seeing this 16 months after the fact.

This map isn't good for determining the closeness of a race. Like if you won 60 to 40%, the map would look really similar. Instead it tells us that a lot fewer people live in a lot of states.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4674
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

I think that's part of the point. Colored maps make it look like America is mostly filled with Republicans with a few small clusters of Democrats around the coasts. Cartograms try to compensate for that but aren't great at it. This map shows you that there are just lots more people near the coasts, slightly more of them being Democrats; and hardly anyone in the middle, slightly more of them Republican. It's pretty close proportions everywhere, there are just lots more people near the coasts, and a slight trend of more Democrats there too.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

DanD
Posts: 301
Joined: Tue Oct 05, 2010 12:42 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby DanD » Mon Jan 08, 2018 6:20 pm UTC

This does help answer the "but more states voted for" argument in a fairly visible way. At least to me, it manages it on a more visceral level than the ones that have the county sizes weighted by population or the like.

Velo Steve
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu May 05, 2011 12:27 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Velo Steve » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:31 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:... This is meaningful because voters from non-swing states have less incentive to vote than those in highly competitive states. With all else being equal, *both* candidates will receive more votes from a swing state than they will from a non-swing state of equal population.
...


And non-swing state voters may show up, but vote differently. In California, I voted for a hopeless candidate in a futile attempt to send a message to both parties that they could have done better. In a state where my vote might actually make a difference, I would have chosen between the two who had a chance.

Stargazer71
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Stargazer71 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 7:52 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:... In California, I voted for a hopeless candidate in a futile attempt to send a message to both parties that they could have done better. In a state where my vote might actually make a difference, I would have chosen between the two who had a chance.


I've heard that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get a substantial number of votes in every presidential election cycle. That *definitely* sends a message, but I'm not exactly sure what that message is.

As a voter in a kindof-sortof-sometimes-swing-state (Colorado), I have never had the motivation to try sending the animated mouse to the Oval Office, though I readily admit that the prospect of the White House becoming the new Mickey Mouse Clubhouse is ... appealing :D .

User avatar
da Doctah
Posts: 876
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2012 6:27 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby da Doctah » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:00 pm UTC

You have produced a map showing the approximate distribution of where people who voted live in the US. Got anything more interesting to us colorblind folks?

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Keyman » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:10 pm UTC

cellocgw wrote:
Kludgy wrote:
Maps are where the the distortion is


Maps are where the Enemy's Gate is.

The Enemy's Gate is DOWN!
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 4674
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Pfhorrest » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:32 pm UTC

And maps are also down, since they are obviously depicted from an aerial view.
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Soupspoon » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:36 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:I've heard that Mickey Mouse and Donald Duck get a substantial number of votes in every presidential election cycle. That *definitely* sends a message, but I'm not exactly sure what that message is.
That some people think that their vote… {exaggerates Scots accent} …Disney matter?

:) :arrow: 8-)

rmsgrey
Posts: 3376
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:35 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby rmsgrey » Mon Jan 08, 2018 8:58 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:A little odd seeing this 16 months after the fact.


How long does it take for the raw data to hit the public domain?

DLC43
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:47 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby DLC43 » Mon Jan 08, 2018 9:51 pm UTC

Hey, there are a bunch of economists and other data visualization fans who love this map and are wondering whether it was created using software or by hand? If software we'd love to know what software!

User avatar
bantler
Posts: 238
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2010 11:23 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby bantler » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:17 pm UTC

Velo Steve wrote:And non-swing state voters may show up, but vote differently. In California, I voted for a hopeless candidate in a futile attempt to send a message to both parties that they could have done better. In a state where my vote might actually make a difference, I would have chosen between the two who had a chance.


Dude, it's either Beef or Chicken on this flight. Ordering a Salad just annoys the stewardesses.

leeharveyosmond
Posts: 40
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 11:03 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby leeharveyosmond » Mon Jan 08, 2018 10:48 pm UTC

Male red/green colourblindness.
It’s a thing.
Traffic signals are not a problem for me.
I find this map unnecessarily difficult to interpret.

bheliker
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:23 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby bheliker » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:00 pm UTC

[citation needed] !!
Anyone know where he gets his source data?

Best source I can find so far: https://data.opendatasoft.com/explore/d ... ic/export/
Last edited by bheliker on Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:01 am UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Steve_The_Beard
Posts: 2
Joined: Tue Sep 01, 2015 9:35 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Steve_The_Beard » Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:02 pm UTC

Very interesting, but I'm disappointed.

So will be one man in twelve, and one woman in two hundred.

That's how many people share my imperfect colour vision. When I zoomed the image as far as possible I could finally see that the figures were actually in three different colours, but then I couldn't see the whole picture, or even a decent slice of it. Had you used three well-chosen different symbols, you'd have reached a larger audience.

hailspork
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby hailspork » Tue Jan 09, 2018 12:00 am UTC

Also colorblind (8% of men are.)

Any hints at what the key takeaways are?

Also, may I suggest "Lucky Charms" rules? Colors AND shapes. Or numbers. Or any non-color-coded display of information.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 6352
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby ucim » Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:18 am UTC

bantler wrote:Dude, it's either Beef or Chicken on this flight. Ordering a Salad just annoys the stewardesses.
What if I have a beef with my chicken?

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

User avatar
Steve the Pocket
Posts: 683
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2007 4:02 am UTC
Location: Going downtuuu in a Luleelurah!

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Steve the Pocket » Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:39 am UTC

I had no idea there were that many "other" votes. A whole quarter of Utah? Holy moly.

Out of curiosity I did some digging and also discovered there were a lot of dissenting electoral voters as well. This whole time I was thinking that "faithless electors" was just a hypothetical scenario fueled by wishful thinking.
cephalopod9 wrote:Only on Xkcd can you start a topic involving Hitler and people spend the better part of half a dozen pages arguing about the quality of Operating Systems.

Baige.

User avatar
ivnja
The spirit of things can bugger right off.
Posts: 815
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2006 5:30 am UTC
Location: 19T526268 4971339 (NAD 83)

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby ivnja » Tue Jan 09, 2018 2:52 am UTC

Quick touch-up in Paint using the color palette here (namely, nos. 11, 6, and 14) to hopefully allow the colors to stand out slightly more:
2016_election_map.png


If that's still not working for some folks, I can try to put one together with shapes.
Hi you.
she/her

hailspork
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Mar 24, 2010 8:17 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby hailspork » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:50 am UTC

ivnja wrote:Quick touch-up in Paint using the color palette here (namely, nos. 11, 6, and 14) to hopefully allow the colors to stand out slightly more: 2016_election_map.png

If that's still not working for some folks, I can try to put one together with shapes.

I'm severely colorblind, but I wouldn't bother for just me. I think I got the joke from other comments.

Marximus
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:18 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Marximus » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:22 am UTC

Great idea, but it doesn't really tell the story. The people who did not vote at all should be represented, as well.

djagir
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Feb 08, 2008 5:51 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby djagir » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:29 am UTC

Steve the Pocket wrote:I had no idea there were that many "other" votes. A whole quarter of Utah? Holy moly.

Utah had the whole Evan McMullin thing going, so there were probably more "other"s there than would otherwise have been the case.

Mikeski
Posts: 1000
Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 7:24 am UTC
Location: Minnesota, USA

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Mikeski » Tue Jan 09, 2018 10:22 am UTC

djagir wrote:
Steve the Pocket wrote:I had no idea there were that many "other" votes. A whole quarter of Utah? Holy moly.

Utah had the whole Evan McMullin thing going, so there were probably more "other"s there than would otherwise have been the case.

Yup, home-state advantage. The same reason Reagan only won 49 states when he was reelected; Minnesota voted for the home-town boy Mondale.

OK, we have also voted for Jesse Ventura and Al Franken, and had Sanders and Rubio* winning the primaries last time, so maybe we're just really dumb and moderately nuts. We also gave McMullin more votes (53K) than Hillary's margin of victory (45K), so our Republican voters forgot we were a swing state and threw the election. (Never mind Johnson's 113K for the libertarian legalized-weed party). We take our dumb nuttiness seriously, though; we had the highest percentage of eligible voters show up to vote of any state in the USA. (We're the Puppy Bowl of voting... we're all happy to participate, but we really don't know how to play the game.)

...

There must be some "bleed" between the states on this map (the grey text implies there is), since the number of figures doesn't make sense on a per-state basis. Minnesota should have about 1.11 green people, 5.29 red people, and 5.47 blue people. It has 1, 5, and 6. Colorado should be 0.96, 4.80, and 5.35, and it has 1, 4, and 5. Obviously, that's not rounding off by state... "5.47 rounds up" while "4.80 rounds down" can't be what's happening, unless political pollsters are doing the rounding. :mrgreen:

That's not affecting Utah, though, which is 2.06 red, 1.24 blue, and 1.22 green. (Yes, "other" did almost beat "Democrat" there.)


* - an exception to hometown boys always winning; Rubio only won MN in the primaries. He came in second in his home state of Florida

DavidSh
Posts: 120
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 6:09 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby DavidSh » Tue Jan 09, 2018 1:57 pm UTC

He did say he is trying to keep national totals intact. It would be surprising if using the same rounding point for all parties would achieve that. Can you determine if there is a consistent rounding point within each party?

eidako
Posts: 125
Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2011 10:24 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby eidako » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:27 pm UTC

owenneil wrote:I spent a while looking, but I give up. Where's Waldo?

Northern Florida.

User avatar
Bob Stein - VisiBone
Posts: 4
Joined: Sun Aug 31, 2008 9:39 am UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Bob Stein - VisiBone » Tue Jan 09, 2018 3:54 pm UTC

Marximus wrote:Great idea, but it doesn't really tell the story. The people who did not vote at all should be represented, as well.


Great idea. I'd love to see ghost icons for eligible voters who didn't vote. And for the even more ghostly ineligible voters: minors, felons, illegal immigrants, aliens in area-51 cryovats.

Image
Source: https://pin.it/am5eldbud67hrj
Source: Washington Post / U.S. Election Project / Dave Wasserman, Census Bureau

Stargazer71
Posts: 107
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2010 3:00 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Stargazer71 » Tue Jan 09, 2018 4:57 pm UTC

Bob Stein - VisiBone wrote:
Marximus wrote:Great idea, but it doesn't really tell the story. The people who did not vote at all should be represented, as well.


Great idea. I'd love to see ghost icons for eligible voters who didn't vote. And for the even more ghostly ineligible voters: minors, felons, illegal immigrants, aliens in area-51 cryovats.

Image
Source: https://pin.it/am5eldbud67hrj
Source: Washington Post / U.S. Election Project / Dave Wasserman, Census Bureau


Why, oh dear God why, would you include minors in a pie chart of election results? Why don't you just include the entire population of Sweden inside the "ineligible to vote" slice while you're at it? It would make just as much sense.

User avatar
Reka
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu Sep 20, 2012 10:21 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Reka » Tue Jan 09, 2018 6:04 pm UTC

Mikeski wrote:There must be some "bleed" between the states on this map (the grey text implies there is), since the number of figures doesn't make sense on a per-state basis. Minnesota should have about 1.11 green people, 5.29 red people, and 5.47 blue people. It has 1, 5, and 6. Colorado should be 0.96, 4.80, and 5.35, and it has 1, 4, and 5.

I think he must be assigning the number of people first, and then deciding what colors they should be based on proportions. So Minnesota needs to have 12 people: 1 is obviously green, but how to distribute 11 people almost-evenly between red and blue? Answer is, you can't, so you do 5 red and 6 blue. This falls down for Colorado, which according to your numbers should have 11 stick figures, but only has 10. Maybe Randall is using slightly different numbers than you?

I still don't understand the timing of this comic.

User avatar
Keyman
Posts: 294
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 1:56 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Keyman » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:06 pm UTC

Stargazer71 wrote:
Bob Stein - VisiBone wrote:
Marximus wrote:Great idea, but it doesn't really tell the story. The people who did not vote at all should be represented, as well.


Great idea. I'd love to see ghost icons for eligible voters who didn't vote. And for the even more ghostly ineligible voters: minors, felons, illegal immigrants, aliens in area-51 cryovats.

Image
Source: https://pin.it/am5eldbud67hrj
Source: Washington Post / U.S. Election Project / Dave Wasserman, Census Bureau


Why, oh dear God why, would you include minors in a pie chart of election results? Why don't you just include the entire population of Sweden inside the "ineligible to vote" slice while you're at it? It would make just as much sense.

This is sarcasm, right? In Minnesota, we have a large population of Swedes. (Whether they fit in Mikeski's "Puppy Bowl" voting theory, I don't know.) But there are many ways one might 'ineligible to vote'. Assuming Convicted Felons are not 28% of the populace and/or non compos mentis ,we must also be including those not registered to vote....
A childhood spent walking while reading books has prepared me unexpectedly well for today's world.

Leovan
Posts: 70
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2016 9:31 pm UTC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Leovan » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:28 pm UTC

Keyman wrote:
Stargazer71 wrote:
Bob Stein - VisiBone wrote:
Marximus wrote:Great idea, but it doesn't really tell the story. The people who did not vote at all should be represented, as well.


Great idea. I'd love to see ghost icons for eligible voters who didn't vote. And for the even more ghostly ineligible voters: minors, felons, illegal immigrants, aliens in area-51 cryovats.

Image
Source: https://pin.it/am5eldbud67hrj
Source: Washington Post / U.S. Election Project / Dave Wasserman, Census Bureau


Why, oh dear God why, would you include minors in a pie chart of election results? Why don't you just include the entire population of Sweden inside the "ineligible to vote" slice while you're at it? It would make just as much sense.

This is sarcasm, right? In Minnesota, we have a large population of Swedes. (Whether they fit in Mikeski's "Puppy Bowl" voting theory, I don't know.) But there are many ways one might 'ineligible to vote'. Assuming Convicted Felons are not 28% of the populace and/or non compos mentis ,we must also be including those not registered to vote....


If minors and immigrants are included then 28% is actually pretty easy to explain. I wouldn't be surprised if minors alone make more than 20%. Where I live, we have more than 20% immigrants as well, so it would be around 40%.
Not registered I'd place under "didn't vote".

Edit: looked it up. Minors make 24% of the US population and immigrants 13%. Implies immigrants were not included in "How America participated"

User avatar
mathmannix
Posts: 1410
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:12 pm UTC
Location: Washington, DC

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby mathmannix » Tue Jan 09, 2018 7:53 pm UTC

Leovan wrote:Edit: looked it up. Minors make 24% of the US population and immigrants 13%. Implies immigrants were not included in "How America participated"

That 13% of the total U.S. population is ALL immigrants, most of whom become legalized citizens, and can (and many of whom do) vote.
Nobody knows for certain how many illegal immigrants there are, but it's probably close to 3.5 percent.
I hear velociraptor tastes like chicken.

User avatar
Soupspoon
You have done something you shouldn't. Or are about to.
Posts: 3368
Joined: Thu Jan 28, 2016 7:00 pm UTC
Location: 53-1

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Postby Soupspoon » Tue Jan 09, 2018 8:14 pm UTC

(Several people came to post whilst I was rushing back home regretting having not taken my second emergency USB power pack with me. I expect ninjas and other treatments of the issue, once I read the interim.)

Those not yet eligible to vote due to age (but not through being Scandiwegian rather than Leftpondian) are still affected directly by the result.

There'll be some future Swedish immigrants, certainly, but that's a choice that native-born children already have not been given and are already affected by (and child Dreamers, but let's not muddle things with that, right now), so one can legitimately exclude the former disenfranchisees from the stats but show the latter ones, especially if you're including Won't Voters and Disqualified Myself From Voting Because I Got Unpaid Parking Fines people, who (by different measures) self-disenfranchised themselves.


Oh, it's all arguable. Like the original Brexit voters dying off quicker than the Remainer ones, due to age demographics, and then trying to work out what the votes of the newly come-of-voting-age voters would have done for that vote, by the time the whole Exit approaches reality (before even looking at protest-vote retraction rate vs "we voted for it, even if I didn't, so just get it done already" adjustments, and all kinds of other new factors).

But I definitely see the point. That it's never been a fully open and level playing field at any time the past, doesn't stop one pointing out where there's blind-spots this last time as well.


Return to “Individual XKCD Comic Threads”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 47 guests