Please note: This site's design is only visible in a graphical browser that supports Web standards, but its content is accessible to any browser or Internet device. To see this site as it was designed please upgrade to a Web standards compliant browser.
 
Signal vs. Noise

Our book:
Defensive Design for the Web: How To Improve Error Messages, Help, Forms, and Other Crisis Points
Available Now ($16.99)

Most Popular (last 15 days)
Looking for old posts?
37signals Mailing List

Subscribe to our free newsletter and receive updates on 37signals' latest projects, research, announcements, and more (about one email per month).

37signals Services
Syndicate
XML version (full posts)
Get Firefox!

What the country looks like on Nov 2

01 Nov 2004 by Jason Fried

The size of each state is distorted to emphasize its share of electoral votes.

41 comments so far (Post a Comment)

01 Nov 2004 | matthew said...

people per electoral vote.

01 Nov 2004 | bradnelson said...

I'd like to see the same type of map based off the information on the site matthew linked. I believe the people of Wyoming have the most sway on each electoral vote (lowest population per EC vote).

01 Nov 2004 | Kunal Anand said...

Great link - it adds the scale that that Electoral-Vote.com lacks. For the popular vote surveys, make sure to check out PollingReport.com.

02 Nov 2004 | Graham Hicks said...

I'm not sure which link you were referring to Kunal, but electoral-vote.com does have a map with states scaled to electoral votes.

02 Nov 2004 | Andrew said...

I wish they used the Real Clear Politics averages instead of just using the polls that give Kerry the advantage.

02 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

I wish they used the Real Clear Politics averages instead of just using the polls that give Kerry the advantage.

No kidding. Not only is the map skewed, the bias is obvious.

I will be so glad when today is over and done with.

02 Nov 2004 | Brian said...

Hopefully that map will turn out to be true.

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

I will be so glad when today is over and done with.

I sympathize. Unfortunately, with the teams of lawyers perched like vultures over the shoulders of vote counters, "today" (like Nov 2000) won't be over until early 2005, even if Bush wins decisively.

02 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

even if Bush wins decisively

No matter which way it goes or how wide the margin (welcome to the new norm in US elections).

02 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Matthew's link points out the absurdity of the EC. This year it fully dawned on my how lopsided our system is.

Obviously, it favours Bush. Hopefully, if Kerry is elected, he'll do SOMETHING about abolishing the EC, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

02 Nov 2004 | JF said...

Obviously, it favours Bush. Hopefully, if Kerry is elected, he'll do SOMETHING about abolishing the EC, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Anyone who is elected under the current system has no incentive to change the system. The system that put them in power is their friend, not their enemy. Don't think Kerry is any different than Bush in this regard.

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Actually, the Electoral College is an important check/balance of our system that protects the country from "mob rule" in national elections and helps insure that we remain a constitutional republic (as the Constitution - i.e., the law of the land - mandates) as opposed to a pure democracy, which we are not, and should not be.

Besides being illegal without a constitutional amendment, the popular vote is much less fair as a few urban areas with ridiculously high concentrations of people would dominate national elections. But what's right for New York City or Los Angeles isn't necessarily right for Alabama or Montana, and vice-versa.

We are a union of free and independent states, and we ultimately vote as states, as we should.

02 Nov 2004 | Benjy said...

Besides being illegal without a constitutional amendment, the popular vote is much less fair as a few urban areas with ridiculously high concentrations of people would dominate national elections. But what's right for New York City or Los Angeles isn't necessarily right for Alabama or Montana, and vice-versa.

While I can somewhat understand the purpose of the electoral college, the current sytem creates a disparity favoring rural states/voters. Because every state has, at a minimum 3 electoral votes, voters in states with lower populations in effect get multiple votes. For example, while an electoral vote from Illinois reprsents 592,335 voters, in Wyoming each electoral vote represents 165,101 voters.

Such a system seemingly gives W. an advantage because he can gain the same number of electoral votes (21) from winning Alaska, Arkansas, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota and Wyoming with a total of 6.1 million residents as Kerry would get from winning Illinois with 12.4 million residents.

Maybe rather than entirely dumping the electroal college, they find an alternate way to allocate votes. Maybe rather than 1 for each senator and U.S. rep, they allocate them per 100k residents to even out the disparity. While the Constitution spells out the system, the country was a very different place 225 years ago and maybe voting rules need to be adjusted to better reflect our modern nation's composition.

02 Nov 2004 | Mark G said...

Take a peek at how dated the EC actually is.

02 Nov 2004 | JF said...

I'm constantly amazed at how people think the system is going to change. The system isn't going to change. The party that wins has no incentive to change the system that put them in power. I don't care which party it is.

The only way this is going to change is if we have a string of elections where the popular vote and the electoral college outcomes are different. That's the only way there will be enough groundswell to force the change. 1 or 2 elections a hundred years apart with different outcomes aren't going to change the system.

02 Nov 2004 | Mark G said...

The only way this is going to change is if we have a string of elections where the popular vote and the electoral college outcomes are different. That's the only way there will be enough groundswell to force the change. 1 or 2 elections a hundred years apart with different outcomes aren't going to change the system.

Let's hope today is the first of many.

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Well I guess my ultimate point is that the federal government has far too much power, taxes far too much, and dictates far too much policy at the state level (by kicking tax money back to states who agree to play by their rules).

If the federal government were out of the welfare, healthcare, local law enforcement, and retirement business, which they should never have been allowed to implement to begin with, it wouldn't matter nearly as much who was president. As the executive officer of the nation, he should simply be insuring that the business end of the country is running smoothly, except in times of war.

Instead we have jerry-rigged a system where essentially we're deciding who will be helping further along the redistribution of wealth, and all of our livelihoods (and many people's survival) is tied to that.

The system is neutral, but using it that way is immoral.

02 Nov 2004 | Carl said...

A fellow Libertarian! Welcome!

02 Nov 2004 | Randal Rust said...

Actually, the Electoral College is an important check/balance of our system that protects the country from "mob rule" in national elections and helps insure that we remain a constitutional republic (as the Constitution - i.e., the law of the land - mandates) as opposed to a pure democracy, which we are not, and should not be.

Excellent point. So many people fail to understand this.

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

Oh yeah...from the Wired article...

In a democracy, every vote is supposed to count.

The article fails before it gets going. We do not live in a pure democracy, and we can't possibly begin to discuss how to conduct our affairs if they are based on incorrect assumptions.

02 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

I will be so glad when today is over and done with.

Amen. I'm a W. supporter. (Kerry's not bad but his waffling on social issues leaves a bad taste in my mouth.) But whoever wins I pray that it will be descisively. I'd much rather take the defeat and say that the best man won then have to endure months of uncertanty and more campaiging.

BTW, can I make a plea to all American citizens? Whoever gets elected today - let's look at them through the lens of wisdom and not our party's line. Nethier Republicans or Democrats have a monopoly on truth. This rediculously partisan year has left me depressed.

02 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

The system is neutral, but using it that way is immoral.

By your moral standards.

As for the electoral collage helping to not favour the metro areas, that is the only argument for retaining it. However, since we're voting based on STATES...not metro regions, the argument holds less water. Besides, this is exactly what the distribution of Senate and house seats are for.

A person living in South Dakota shouldn't have their vote weigh 3 times as much as somone in California. It's absurd.

What would be a nice interim step would be to have all states divide the electorate based on the popular vote.

And, yea, JF, I know...the current system is here because it does favour a 2-party system. *sigh*.

02 Nov 2004 | ds said...

>In a democracy, every vote is supposed to count.

That's fine, but we don't live in a democracy, we live in a federal republic governed by a representative democracy. States have independent powers and we elect people to represent us in the federal government. This is why a senate *and* a representative body exist, to balance out the needs of the states with the needs of the people.

If the electoral vote didn't exist, then a few east/west-coast states would have all the power and most of the midWest and West would be completely disenfranchised; "mob rule" indeed.

And, yes, I watched SchoolHouse Rock as a child.

ds

02 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

BTW, can I make a plea to all American citizens? Whoever gets elected today - let's look at them through the lens of wisdom and not our party's line.

I don't think anti-bush people are anti-bush because he's a republican as much as it's because he's George Bush.

02 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

And I just have to say that Libertarians know what they're talking about.

I think it'd be a good goal for 08 to see a Libertarian get elected to some sort of high office.

02 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

I'm anti-bush because I disagree with the vast majority of his policies, from stem-cell research to fiscal policy to foreign policy.

02 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Interesting comment from a coworker:

Democrats tend to really hate Bush.
Republicans tend to really hate democrats.

;o)

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

>A person living in South Dakota shouldn't have their vote weigh 3 times as much as somone in California. It's absurd.

It's only absurd in the context of majority rule. When you consider that the entire purpose of the Consitution is to limit the size and scope of federal government, to guarantee republican government to all the states, and to protect the minority from the majority (e.g., the 1st Amendment, among others), it makes perfect sense since it tempers (to a degree) the ability of the majority to completely dominate.

02 Nov 2004 | MH said...

Democrats tend to really hate Bush.
Republicans tend to really hate democrats.

I disagree with your coworker; Democrats LOATHE Republicans in general. To them, the word "Republican" is equivalent to "wife-beater" or "Satan."

-- former Democrat, current Independent

02 Nov 2004 | Andy said...

I disagree with your coworker; Democrats LOATHE Republicans in general. To them, the word "Republican" is equivalent to "wife-beater" or "Satan."

You're wrong. I'm a democrat, and I don't loathe republicans. I don't think "Republican" is equivalent to "wife-beater" or "Satan" (especiallygiven that I'm an atheist). I do disagree with the vast majority of republican policies.

02 Nov 2004 | Levi said...

I don't think anti-bush people are anti-bush because he's a republican as much as it's because he's George Bush.

Ethier way, I'm going to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt in every descision he makes. I'm not going to have a knee-jerk reaction just because he's Kerry.

I disagree with your coworker; Democrats LOATHE Republicans in general. To them, the word "Republican" is equivalent to "wife-beater" or "Satan."

That's just sad and misguided. On the level of the hicks who someone because they're .

02 Nov 2004 | Scott said...

http://www.instantrunoff.com

02 Nov 2004 | MH said...

You're wrong. I'm a democrat, and I don't loathe republicans. I don't think "Republican" is equivalent to "wife-beater" or "Satan" (especiallygiven that I'm an atheist). I do disagree with the vast majority of republican policies.

Well, I'm glad to be wrong in your case. It's just my experience (1) having been a "Democrat-by-default" in the past and (2) Continuing to be surrounded by people who make the assumption that you couldn't possibly be anything else.

02 Nov 2004 | Chris S said...

In all seriousness, if you want to have a fruitful, educational political discussion, here's what you do:

1. Get a group together, whether they're all "the same" or not doesn't really matter, as long as they're interested and serious.

2. Set dates for two discussions, 3 months apart. Set a list of questions/topics to discuss.

3. Hold the first discussion, with a (good) moderator. Videotape it, give everyone a list of the questions. Rules include everyone has to participate, everyone has to take notes, and obey the moderator. You can say or argue from any position/idea you want.

4. Now, to attend the next discussion, you have to read the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist, and John Locke's 'A Second Treatise Concerning Civil Government'., and bring those documents to the table.

5. Hold the second discussion, addressing the exact same topics, but rooting all of your responses to what you find in those documents alone.

6. Enjoy.

7. Do it again, but this time each attendee must act as a moderator and get a new crowd together for the same thing.


02 Nov 2004 | Darrel said...

Ethier way, I'm going to give Kerry the benefit of the doubt in every descision he makes. I'm not going to have a knee-jerk reaction just because he's Kerry.

Oh sure. I'm just saying that it has been less about partisan bickering and more about folks really not liking what this president has done...regardless of his party affiliation.

As for dems vs. reps, that comment was more of a joke than anything.

There is a rift between fundamentalists and the rest, though. I don't hate republicans...plenty of smart republicans out there. I do tend to not have much respect for the fundamentalist voters...the ones that call Kerry a baby killer or go to gay marriage rallies or forbid Kerry from going taking communion or feel all Muslims are evil towel-heads, etc.. Of course, these folks also tend to be republican, so that's where the stereotyping kicks in. Bush doesn't do much to discourage the stereotype since pandering to the fundamentalists has always been a key part of his campaign strategies. (Granted the consititution/militant libertarian folks are fundamentalist in nature as well, but we'll save that for another debate ;o)

03 Nov 2004 | clubber lang said...

My prediction come Wed. morning.... pain.

03 Nov 2004 | Arne Gleason said...

Oh my head! What was I drinking last night?

03 Nov 2004 | clubber lang said...

See! Told ya...

03 Nov 2004 | Don Schenck said...

Sales of Prozac will skyrocket!

03 Nov 2004 | Brian Peddle said...

There are several ways to fix the electoral college, both of which could make things a little more fair.

First way already exists in Maine and one other state. The EC votes are split up between candidates based on congressional district wins. So if Kerry won 3 out of 4 districts in Maine and Bush 1 district -- Kerry would have gotten 3 EC votes and Bush 1.

I think this should be based soley on the percentage not districts. As we have seen in one state districts were redrawn by republicans and the democrats lost their new districts.

The other way would be to give EV votes based on the # of people who vote in your state. If you care about what happens you will get out and vote. If you don't vote too bad for you. So if Ohio has 20 EV votes based on their population you could take the # of registered voters + the number of voters who could be registered. If only half of those voters vote than they get 10 EC votes to cast.

The second way may give way to, too many what-if's. The first way which is in practice, and the way Colorado tried to do this time, may be an easier solution and would be a truer representation of how the state wants to vote.

03 Nov 2004 | pb said...

One other thing is for the number of Electoral College votes to keep up with population growth. This would alleviate the skew, for example, between Wyoming and California. Although the fact that each state gets at least 3 EC votes will always skew it a bit.

Comments on this post are closed

 
Back to Top ^