County by county still shows red states prevail

About: map: presidential election winners by county | election 2008 | washingtonpost.com

Some say the country is still conservative!

Comments

Seth says

Me thinks what it shows is that Democrats have the cities and Republicans have the country. Obama was a city guy. But, yes, pretty impressive map.

Mark de LA says

The map still doesn't explain why the electorial college votes were also so skewed for Obama.

Seth says

M 2008-11-14 11:03:43 10865

The map still doesn't explain why the electoral college votes were also so skewed for Obama.

Sure it does: the blue counties have more population and hence more votes counted towards those states that went blue. If you drew the map proportional to the population or voters it would be very obvious.

Seth says

source: M above
[The electoral college] disenfranchises to an extent those who reside in states with smaller & spread out populations.

Not really. The winner take all rules is what disenfranchises. It disenfranchises those who do not win the majority in their state. Were these votes combined with other votes in similar states they would count. The electoral college can misrepresent the will of the majority of the people. It does so by pixelating - by gerrymandering. But still, to get a true image of what an even handed national representation would be, you need to loose geography and proportionate by population.

Btw, in this election it would not have changed the outcome - but would have changed the campaign. Obama won the popular vote by a substantial margin - though not as dramatic as the electoral landslide. In 2000 it would have canged the outcome because Gore won the popular vote.

Mark de LA says

M 2008-11-14 17:34:54 10865

seth 2008-11-14 16:43:38 10865

M 2008-11-14 11:03:43 10865

The map still doesn't explain why the electoral college votes were also so skewed for Obama.

Well, I look at Indiana, Ohio & Pennsylvania & what I see via the election map from FoxNews & I wonder how such large part of the real estate of these states is controlled election-wise by people located in such a small amount of the area. I am reminded of the fact that elections are won by a percentage of the total vote. It would be interesting to know what the % of those eligible in the aforementioned states actually were counted as voting. I am not disputing the counts just the balance.

IOW, have we reached the point where the electorial college is weakening in it's value. The electorial college is one of the few things that balances an overreaching federal government; that being the reason why it was invented. I think that the large amount of money & time devoted to the strategy of campaigning in swing states was effective (for Obama) & added to what seems to unsettle me. However, it disenfranchises to an extent those who reside in states with smaller & spread out populations. Whether it is good or bad is yet to be determined.

Mark de LA says

FYI, here is the election 2000 map for comparison:

aparently the campaigning in "swing states" changed the colors from red to blue.

Seth says

source: M above
aparently the campaigning in "swing states" changed the colors from red to blue.

yep that was the idea. But was it the campaigning that did it, or was it that the demographics of the nation is changing?

Mark de LA says

The popular vote totally minimizes the value of the individual states; it's the wrong way to go. Why have states at all? We do have a democratic republic form of government! Now if a state's electorial votes were put together like the national electorial vote system we could have a vote by county = the vote for the state .... but then no democrat would ever vote for such a scheme given what the maps show.

The 2008 election was only a landslide in the minds of the winners. ~57 million voted for someone else. A landslide might have been 60% to 40% or something like it. See Reagan-Mondale 1984 for a landslide (notice the electorial map here 525 to 13).

Mark de LA says

seth 2008-11-15 06:11:56 10865

source: M above
aparently the campaigning in "swing states" changed the colors from red to blue.

yep that was the idea. But was it the campaigning that did it, or was it that the demographics of the nation is changing?

It was the campaign - most folks bought the word change. Tony Robbins would be proud of him. Again I refer you to the Heinlien quote in the comments of 10695. The demographics of people who want to redistribute other people's money to themselves is growing - it's not a good thing. So far the change seems to be bringing back the old Clinton regime.

County by county still shows red states prevail

About: map: presidential election winners by county | election 2008 | washingtonpost.com

Tags

Comments

See Also