05/11: Mapping the Election and the Urban-Rural Divide
Category: Politics
Posted by: Martian Mariner
As I mentioned a few days ago, I'm a spatially-focused kind of guy, and a sucker for maps. I love the immediate interpretation of vast amounts of data that a map can show. So, for the election results, I've been going straight to the maps. We've all seen the state-by-state maps, and have probably noticed that the map seems to look pretty red, even though Obama cleaned house with Electoral college votes.
The obvious explanation is that the difference is due to population in these states, which, since we're looking at this spatially, corresponds to population density. Obama overwhelmingly carried densely-populated areas. Compare this population density map, shown by county, with this election results map, also by county (scroll down a bit).
A more unconventional way to show the population difference is with a population-scaled cartogram. [Aside: these weighted cartograms can end up showing some really neat stuff. Check out this site and browse.] Someone's been industrious overnight, and we've already got a weighted cartogram for the election results, here.
County-by-county maps can show startling results. For example, my state, Missouri, is still "too close to call." A map of election results by county shows that only 8 of 114 counties were carried by Obama! (Plus the city of St. Louis, not in a county.) Looking at these counties, though, shows that you've got Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia all going Obama. Of course, this county-by-county examination is not completely meaningful, since there is no state electoral college, and many of those red counties were 55-44 sorts of places, and those 44s add up.
As far as conclusions go, well, I generally avoid them. But in this case, especially looking at the population density map and county election results map in conjunction, there seems to be significant evidence for an Urban-Rural gap in this country. Voting for a president is only partially indicative of overall values and preferences, but it is a key indicator. Rural and Urban Americans seem to value different things.
[I know, that's not much of a new point. But I do like to see some empirical evidence to back this up, in addition to the anecdotal and assumptive evidence we've had so far. I'm a bit more into social sciences than Farmer and gardener, and I think this preference of mine is one of the main reasons.]
The obvious explanation is that the difference is due to population in these states, which, since we're looking at this spatially, corresponds to population density. Obama overwhelmingly carried densely-populated areas. Compare this population density map, shown by county, with this election results map, also by county (scroll down a bit).
A more unconventional way to show the population difference is with a population-scaled cartogram. [Aside: these weighted cartograms can end up showing some really neat stuff. Check out this site and browse.] Someone's been industrious overnight, and we've already got a weighted cartogram for the election results, here.
County-by-county maps can show startling results. For example, my state, Missouri, is still "too close to call." A map of election results by county shows that only 8 of 114 counties were carried by Obama! (Plus the city of St. Louis, not in a county.) Looking at these counties, though, shows that you've got Kansas City, St. Louis, and Columbia all going Obama. Of course, this county-by-county examination is not completely meaningful, since there is no state electoral college, and many of those red counties were 55-44 sorts of places, and those 44s add up.
As far as conclusions go, well, I generally avoid them. But in this case, especially looking at the population density map and county election results map in conjunction, there seems to be significant evidence for an Urban-Rural gap in this country. Voting for a president is only partially indicative of overall values and preferences, but it is a key indicator. Rural and Urban Americans seem to value different things.
[I know, that's not much of a new point. But I do like to see some empirical evidence to back this up, in addition to the anecdotal and assumptive evidence we've had so far. I'm a bit more into social sciences than Farmer and gardener, and I think this preference of mine is one of the main reasons.]
an okie gardener wrote: