Interesting graph on political demographics
 

I'm sure US papers are full of these kind of pictures at the moment, but I thought I'd post this. I found it interesting.

http://www.smh.com.au/ffxmedia/gr_uselect30,0.jpg


Mr Mephisto

Seems to me like a sea of red in favour of Mr. Bush to me. To even things up i think the grey states should be coloured blue. It would make the map look pretty. Very interesting Mr Mephisto. Once the election is over could you post another map with all the places shaded in their true colours. Thanx

Come on everyone lets help change red to blue and gray to blue to.

And this is why the electoral college is important. Imagine if you only had to carry a couple of the most populous states. That entire "sea of red" would essentially have no voice.

i am a single plankton... floating in a sea of red.

Great graphic. Here's one that I believe is more representative;for example, you can plainly see why the midwest is so important. Also, if you click on the supplied link, you can actually research how each county voted.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/10...h/electmap.jpg

http://www.usatoday.com/news/vote2000/cbc/map.htm

Same old, same old, big government Democrats get the urban areas, big government Republicans get the heartland. We are divided between country folk and city folk.
Come the revolution, I'm moving to the country. Oh wait, I'm already there, LOL.

Holy Crap! looking at the map posted by LewisCouch the Gore stole the election mantra should STFU.

These pictures show just how important the electoral college is. To allow the popular vote to have sway, only the large cities would get what they want. To take only land-mass into account, those in the large cities would largely be ignored. The electoral college seeks to find the middle road, giving everyone some power.

In my opinion, though, it is wrong for those who do not vote for the winning candidate in their state to have no say in the final results. I support changing the system as is proposed in Colorado, but unfortunately this won't happen one state at a time. It would take power away from their state because winning the whole state would only be worth 2 EVs. It would have to be agreed upon by all states at once.

The Electoral College is a joke. The "large cities" wouldn't get "what they want" in opposition to rural Americans if a popular vote mattered. Instead, candidates for President would simply move mildly to the left as several million new, more liberal votes would matter, especially as voter turnout increases in urban areas (new york/boston/chicago/l.a./san fransisco/etc.) where votes will matter more.

I don't think anyone has advocated taking land-mass into account.

Mr Mephisto - Any input or just another link post?

yes - a reminder to all - please post your opinions or something of substance of your own words to accompany referenced info when starting threads.
Thanks.

Colorado's way isn't much better than a direct popular vote. I highly prefer Maine and Nebraska's method.

wha? First, you mean Bush, not Gore stole the election.

Second, as I am sure you know, a great deal of the red space in the middle is so incredibly sparsely populated that entire states don't equal the population of some of the NE blue counties.

Lot's of red = corn stalks and cowshit. Not people.

Take the CA map - ten of those red counties wouldn't even have as many people as one of those counties where LA is at..

Or NYC, you can't even really see it on the map but it outweighs most of the surrounding areas.

However the needs and interest of rural folk are almost COMPLETELY different from the needs and interests of urban folk, hence the need to balance them out. A direct popular vote would lead to complete domination of urban interests, whereas the electoral college, combined with the primaries beginning in Iowa allows rural interests to still have a say in national politics.

It seems to me that those who tend to lean toward the democratic party - being, supposedly, the party that fights for the rights of minorities - should logically see the need to protect the voices of rural minorities. Or is it that since they don't agree with you they don't count?

(note, I think the Republicans are just as much hypocritical)

This is precisely why I do support the idea of dividing electoral votes the way in which Maine and Nebraska do where the divisial uses congressional districts instead, since congressional districts are designed to have similar populations. Of course, an implicit requirement in this is the elimination of gerrymandering. Every state needs to move to the Iowa method of redistricting. This is yet another thing, however, that is no one's fault but our own for not pressuring our politicians to do this. They will not give up their power willingly, we must force them to give it up or forcibly take it from them (note: I primarily mean through our voting, or lack of voting, for them, not physical force).

Absolutely. The electoral college is a fine idea, but it's long overdue an update.

Arkansas has six electoral votes. Of 70 counties in Arkansas 31 went to Gore and rest went to Bush. Even though nearly half the counties in Arkansas went "blue," President Bush was given all six of those, oh so precious, electoral votes. Needless to say the Razorback Country Democrats felt a bit cheated.

I simply posted this because I thought it was interesting. There was no hidden agenda. It's a informational graph on political demographics. Sheesh...

I honestly, for the life to me, can't see why this deserves an attack or criticism.

Do I have any input? Yes I do. As I said in the original post, "I think this is interesting." Do I have any opinion? Yes. "I hope the election goes smoothly." Are you happy now?

Ustwo, please accept my personal apology is this post does not live up to your high standard for posts to this board. Hopefully others will see the irony in that statement.


Mr Mephisto

Duly noted.

I'm a bit insulted that I should be singled out after I posted something, non-partisan and wholly informational, simply because I thought others would be interested.

I stand corrected. From now on I'll ensure I post only opinionated pieces.

EDIT: - Insulted is the wrong term. Too harsh. "disappointed" would be better.

Mr Mephisto

Hey, I found it interesting. I don't have time at the moment, but someone should really dig up a population densitly map and superimpose it on that county map. Yes, rural areas have entirely different concerns than urban areas, and those concerns are equally vaild, but isn't that what the senate is for?

You are not being singled out. There are plenty of people who have been chastised for not following the rules of the forum. The rules say that posters need to include their opinions or thoughts on the piece along with the piece. This isn't meant to be a posting forum but a discussion forum.

Personally, I too have found pieces that I thought spoke for themselves and wanted to post for informational purposes but, due to the rules, added some commentary to go along with it. :thumbsup:

Hehe onetime2.

Actually, I was being sarcastic. :)


Mr Mephisto