Original Map (from New York Times)
Improving the Map
Although the above map may represent accurate information, there are better ways in which the data can be visually represented. While it may appear that McCain won the popular vote because he won the most states, it is important to acknowledge population densities within these states. Obama won states that had higher populations of people, and therefore won the popular vote. In order to visually display this, it would be best to use the Garner and Newman (2004) cartogram method which distorts county sizes to represent the relative population densities. Additionally, this map could also be improved by depicting areas where there were pretty even votes. This could be represented by the color purple and would allow a more realistic understanding of how close the race truly was. Again, using the Garner and Newman (2004) cartogram method would allow for this. Lastly, the map could reveal even greater detail by including the locations of donors and showing which counties and states gave the most money to both campaigns. Understanding which campaign had the most donors, where the donors lived, and how much the donors contributed could lead to further understanding of the importance of fundraising and its impact on the outcome of a presidential eleciton. Therefore, three major changes include using a cartogram to display voting patterns by county, employing purple to represent areas with mixed voting patterns, and lastly, displaying the locations of donors and their overall contributions. There are many different elements that can be displayed in a map. For this map, we can extend the knowledge portrayed further by including race and age distribution. Mapping such data would allow for the visualization of patterns between race or age and voting tendencies. These are just some examples representing the potential for electoral maps to display more than the obvious and help identify relationships between different factors.
Improving the Map
Although the above map may represent accurate information, there are better ways in which the data can be visually represented. While it may appear that McCain won the popular vote because he won the most states, it is important to acknowledge population densities within these states. Obama won states that had higher populations of people, and therefore won the popular vote. In order to visually display this, it would be best to use the Garner and Newman (2004) cartogram method which distorts county sizes to represent the relative population densities. Additionally, this map could also be improved by depicting areas where there were pretty even votes. This could be represented by the color purple and would allow a more realistic understanding of how close the race truly was. Again, using the Garner and Newman (2004) cartogram method would allow for this. Lastly, the map could reveal even greater detail by including the locations of donors and showing which counties and states gave the most money to both campaigns. Understanding which campaign had the most donors, where the donors lived, and how much the donors contributed could lead to further understanding of the importance of fundraising and its impact on the outcome of a presidential eleciton. Therefore, three major changes include using a cartogram to display voting patterns by county, employing purple to represent areas with mixed voting patterns, and lastly, displaying the locations of donors and their overall contributions. There are many different elements that can be displayed in a map. For this map, we can extend the knowledge portrayed further by including race and age distribution. Mapping such data would allow for the visualization of patterns between race or age and voting tendencies. These are just some examples representing the potential for electoral maps to display more than the obvious and help identify relationships between different factors.
No comments:
Post a Comment