File this under “Q” for “Question Everything.”…
Now I’m a political naif, and I still don’t understand why a “red state” is red, while a “blue state” is blue. However, in newspapers I keep seeing maps showing that most of the states in the United States are “red states.” Therefore, since I live in a “blue state,” I must live in a political minority area, right?
The real answer to that question is — not really, or sort of. The “red states” do cover more area, but what counts in an election is population. Back in 2004 and again in 2006, for the national elections in those years, Michael Gastner, Cosma Shalizi, and Mark Newman of the University of Michigan created red-state-blue-state maps called cartograms, “in which the sizes of states have been rescaled according to their population.” They created several different cartograms absed on differing analyses of election data, and you can see their cartograms here.
Their cartograms go beyond the red-state-blue-state dichotomy, showing that the political divisions in the United States are not as clear cut as those red-state-blue-state maps you see in the newspapers. Obviously, showing a deeply divided nation makes for better news graphics, but it also makes for less accurate news graphics.
I guess the moral of the story is: Question Everything, especially in the news media.
[Via.]
You need to read Mark Monmonier’s How to Lie with Maps when looking at these kinds of graphics.
Our elections though are not about population. They are state-by-state. If they were by population the campaigns would stay put in three or four major TV markets and the rest of is would never see much of the candidates.
Ah,
Time for a mini lecture on the realities of reality.
The “Red fish Blue fish” phenomenon is a creation of party politics and the Electoral college. It does not matter in the end whether you or I are purple or maroon, or if our neighborhoods lean toward violet or lilac. Though people are full of complexity, the President of the United States is selected not by people, but by the Electoral College. Well, that is made of people, but they are people with deep set predjudices and loyalites. Thus what matters in election strategy is how the electoral votes are assigned. I think it was Carl Rove who most recently made obvious to George Bush that a mere fraction of a majority of voters in one state siding with the Republicans could assure that (in most states) ALL of the electoral votes from that state are Repbulican. Thus, despite the realities on the ground, the state appears solid red on a Carl Rove map.
Thus, despite the realities on the ground, the state appears solid red on a Carl Rove map.
That’s a reality true of anyone who works politics. Obama was speaking to that handful of largely undecided female votes in some swing states last night… believe me the folks working his campaign are focused soley on that cohort to make sure those key states are solid blue based on the votes of a small group of undecideds.
While plenty of liberals argue for getting rid of the electoral college, it does function to unite in the sense it makes sure even those small states are involved. Otherwise the election would be held in LA, Chicago, and NYC media markets and the rest of the country would be on its own…
Bill @ 1 — I almost titled this post “How To Lie With Maps.”
Question everything. We are not as divided as the political strategists and news media like to insist.
We’re not as divided as media (or most UUs) believe. Read Brink Lindsey’s The Age of Abundance: How Prosperity Transformed America’s Politics and Culture. A good read on the history of our times and the great libertarian consensus. It’s a troubling book for the left and especially those who think Obama is gong to mark a left turn.
Bill @5 — You write: “Obama is going to mark a left turn”
Speaking as a leftist myself, anyone who thinks that Obama is leftist is deluded. Considered in a worldwide context, he is definitely right of center. George W. Bush’s partial nationalization of the banking industry (a.k.a., “the bailout”) is further to the left than most of the positions Obama has declared.
And as for those libertarians who think that Obama is going to be a libertarian, I don’t see it. He has made no indication that he will give up any of the authoritarian prerogatives that the last few presidents have managed to collect, and from my definitely anti-authoritarian perspective Obama looks just about as authoritarian as McCain.