Page 2 of 2

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:05 pm UTC
by Steve_The_Beard
ivnja wrote:If that's still not working for some folks, I can try to put one together with shapes.


Thank you, I do appreciate your effort :-)

However, even though I don't consider myself to be "severely" colour-blind, it didn't actually help me. Shapes please :-)

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:09 pm UTC
by Stargazer71
Keyman wrote: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....


THIS is sarcasm right? Did you really have that difficult of a time understanding what I was trying to say? How could a large population of Swedes in Minnesota have anything to do with the point I already made?

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Tue Jan 09, 2018 9:42 pm UTC
by mathmannix
It might not be a particularly USEFUL chart, but it is what it says it is (assuming the numbers are correct, which I didn't check), a chart of all Americans. And my two preschool kids are Americans who didn't vote in 2016, and probably won't vote for at least a decade!

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:38 am UTC
by ivnja
Steve_The_Beard wrote:
ivnja wrote:If that's still not working for some folks, I can try to put one together with shapes.


Thank you, I do appreciate your effort :-)

However, even though I don't consider myself to be "severely" colour-blind, it didn't actually help me. Shapes please :-)

Okeydoke, I'll see what I can do tomorrow.

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 5:31 am UTC
by Leovan
mathmannix wrote:
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.


Why would you still count naturalized citizens as immigrants? But you're right.
48% from that statistic are naturalized citizens, so the ineligible to vote because immigrant group is about 7% of the total population. This includes illegals. Assuming the same 24% minor ratio, it's possible non-naturalized immigrants were included in the ineligible to vote category of the chart.
To be honest I'm surprised the US immigrant population is so small...

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 9:19 am UTC
by chridd
How's this for color blind people?

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:13 pm UTC
by Chicagojon
owenneil wrote:I spent a while looking, but I give up. Where's Waldo?


He's the green guy near Tampa, FL that swung that state. Pretty sure those are his brothers in Madison, WI and (presumably) Ann Arbor, MI

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 2:17 pm UTC
by Chicagojon
Relevant map today as North Carolina's redistrcting has been struck down by a Federal judge.

Representatives are 3 Democrats/10 Republicans but it's pretty easy to see that the blue/red ratio on the map is 10/9.

Gee golly gosh, I wonder how such a thing may have happened????

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 3:11 pm UTC
by Velo Steve
Steve_The_Beard wrote: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.


I've never thought I had a color problem, but the green figures on this map were barely distinguishable from blue for me at first. Lately I have been using a "Blue/Orange Divergent" color map from https://datascience.lanl.gov/colormaps.html . It obviously can't help the truly color blind, but at least it avoids the most common red/green problem. It also has a range of darkness (value) which can be helpful. As I read while choosing that colormap, "red and green should never be seen" (together in a chart).

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 4:09 pm UTC
by Tinfoil666
Soupspoon wrote: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?



I assumed that this was a tally of actual votes, not potential voters.
If no candidate received 125k+ votes from those precincts (which is likely if the total population is <350k), then there should not be any separate marks on the map.

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:18 pm UTC
by ivnja
hailspork wrote:I would[...]for just me.
Steve_The_Beard wrote:Shapes please :-)

chridd's post above is probably a better way of doing it, in that the two main parties are visible without having to zoom in, but here's a shapes-based version. Clinton voters lean left, Trump lean right. Best viewed at close to full-size.
Spoiler:
Election_map_OBG.png

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:20 pm UTC
by akk
bheliker wrote:[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/


I'd like to know that too. I did a search about a month after the election and the opendatasoft data, scraped from the New York Times and available in a few different places and formats, was the best I found. I never did find anything official, and I'm not having much more luck now. The FEC has results by state but not by county or precinct; any more detailed national results I've found are either non-free, or scraped.

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:24 am UTC
by Soupspoon
I took the 'approximate location within the state' part to mean that attempts to place the mini-voters across the states had to be done, smudgily, by shoving otherwise unknown group-locations into a pattern generally matching a population density hot-spot map. Data pertaining to "this particular settlement of quarter of a million voted all this way/that way" not being available, the marker of a particular type is laid down on a patch of ┬╝mil people in a stippled way that might indeed be inaccurate to the ground conditions but the inaccuracies happening both ways. The overall 'state of the state' being accurate.

(Also why the UP has no men in it, as I noted. Whether or not there deserve to be one or maybe a few sparse men dotting around this quieter area, somewhere where there is a large enough township or band of rural-level connurnation, if all the little men for the whole state were 'used up' in the other parts by way of rounding-up errors then that space is left devoid of markers. As may be other open areas of other states, though not so obviously so without the obvious geographic separation as well.)

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 2:35 am UTC
by Pfhorrest
There is definitely county-by-county data on party preference available, so I'd imagine that would make a better source for approximate little man placement than raw population density would.

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Fri Jan 12, 2018 3:04 am UTC
by Soupspoon
Yup. I've seen the county-by-county maps used to show "look, it's red everywhere (except for some splodges over at the coasts, etc, that just happen to be some of the largest and densest-by-population metropolitan areas, but that doesn't really suit our message that most of the area of the US supported our guy)" and that's probably part of what was used. But with few places having outright all-red or all-blue (or all-other) in convenient quarter-mill lumps, we're back to using an imprecise stippling/dithering method to give an impression, with an obvious departure from reality if you zoomed in on a particular area and tried to match map to on-the-ground Truth.

But that's just me "that's how I would have done it" explanation. TIMTOWTDI.

Re: 1939: "2016 Election Map"

Posted: Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:27 pm UTC
by Stargazer71
Chicagojon wrote:Relevant map today as North Carolina's redistrcting has been struck down by a Federal judge.

Representatives are 3 Democrats/10 Republicans but it's pretty easy to see that the blue/red ratio on the map is 10/9.

Gee golly gosh, I wonder how such a thing may have happened????



Yes, because such behavior is never engaged in by Democrats ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maryland_US_Congressional_District_3_(since_2013).tif
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Maryland_US_Congressional_District_2_(since_2013).tif

... Whoops! ... gee golly gosh. I wonder how THOSE district boundaries were drawn.