Post random maps here

[Antonio the Sixth]

Remember, it regards the House of Representatives in 2003.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok, I guess I'll make it easier.
Blue States can be considered as "lucky", red States as "unlucky". The darker a State is, the more lucky/unlucky it is. Have a look to North Carolina and Utah in particular : at the time, they were particularly famous for being respectively the luckiest and the unluckiest.

Remember, it regards the House of Representatives in 2003.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bumping it for the last time.

Ok, I guess I'll make it easier.
Blue States can be considered as "lucky", red States as "unlucky". The darker a State is, the more lucky/unlucky it is. Have a look to North Carolina and Utah in particular : at the time, they were particularly famous for being respectively the luckiest and the unluckiest.

Remember, it regards the House of Representatives in 2003.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Remember, it regards the House of Representatives in 2003.

Oh, yeah, forgot that you'd mentioned that it had to do with Representatives. Is it perhaps something along the lines of % of incumbents who survived a primary challenge? It seems a bit odd that there'd be states where the majority of incumbents were turfed out in the primaries, but perhaps something along those lines?

Sorry, you didn't got it.

This map shows the variation between the theoretical number of seats a State should get in the House of Representatives and the real number of seats it got under the 2003 apportionment. Blue States are overrepresented while red States are underrepresented.

For example, Utah, with 2,236,714 inh. should have deserved 3.46 seats but got only 3. So, it's underrepresented by 0.46 seats. To the contrary, North Carolina, with 8,067,673 inh., deserved 12.47 seats and got 13. Overrepresented by 0.53 seats.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Remember, it regards the House of Representatives in 2003.

Oh, yeah, forgot that you'd mentioned that it had to do with Representatives. Is it perhaps something along the lines of % of incumbents who survived a primary challenge? It seems a bit odd that there'd be states where the majority of incumbents were turfed out in the primaries, but perhaps something along those lines?

Sorry, you didn't got it.

This map shows the variation between the theoretical number of seats a State should get in the House of Representatives and the real number of seats it got under the 2003 apportionment. Blue States are overrepresented while red States are underrepresented.

For example, Utah, with 2,236,714 inh. should have deserved 3.46 seats but got only 3. So, it's underrepresented by 0.46 seats. To the contrary, North Carolina, with 8,067,673 inh., deserved 12.47 seats and got 13. Overrepresented by 0.53 seats.

An excellent idea and an excellent map!

Thanks.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The shading is important; the color is irrelevant.

Note that there are only five different shades.

Topic ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

The shading is important; the color is irrelevant.

Note that there are only five different shades.

Well, it's non-political.  Try and think about what the darkest states all have in common, and why Maine is the only lightest shade.

Are the shades degrees of something or are they five different categories with each state fitting in the relevant category?

Um, both perhaps? 

Let's just say that lighter shades mean that there are less of something, while darker shades mean more of the same thing.

Oh, I know !

It's the number of syllables of a State's name.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Green=Voted for Hoover in 1928 and Johnson in 1964
Red=Voted Smith and Johnson
Blue=Voted Hoover and Goldwater
White=Voted Smith and Johnson
Yellow=Didn't vote in 1928

[Antonio the Sixth]

This one is probably easy to predict, but I felt like posting it so meh......

Combined 1960 and 2000 election results.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How gay each state is?

Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.
http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143

Oddly enough this might be true.
You won't believe how lax the alcohol laws are in a lot of places in Texas.  Hell, I even think in some places it's legal for minors to consume alcohol as long as there is an adult around.
Not to mention the social permissiveness that exists in Texas cities like Houston and Austin.
Oklahoma and Kansas though.....really?

Wait... wait... You mean that DARK States are the more free and LIGHT States the more fascist ?
What the hell ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How gay each state is?

Index of Personal and Economic Freedom.
http://www.statepolicyindex.com/?page_id=143

Oddly enough this might be true.
You won't believe how lax the alcohol laws are in a lot of places in Texas.  Hell, I even think in some places it's legal for minors to consume alcohol as long as there is an adult around.
Not to mention the social permissiveness that exists in Texas cities like Houston and Austin.
Oklahoma and Kansas though.....really?

Wait... wait... You mean that DARK States are the more free and LIGHT States the more fascist ?
What the hell ?

It must be those goddamn state governments, regulating our lives.......
It must be some really key things these people were looking at because if you notice hippie haven Colorado is also dark green.
Now notice it says Personal and Economic Freedoms, so that might explain kind of why the "blue states" are sky green.  Plus, I hear things like gun laws suck mightily in places like Maryland and New York.
However, I think these people really need to visit Oklahoma.......I mean really.  Most states level of social authoritarianism is overblown (like Texas), but I can say without bias that Oklahoma truly does blow.

Sure, if you focus on gun laws and consider government regulations as a horrible infringement to "economic freedom", the map can make sense. Still, it just shows how ridiculously biased the authors of this index are.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As I supposed, the criteria of this index utterly suck. Half of them don't even have anything to do with freedom...

[Antonio the Sixth]

Here is a quite simple one, but which strangely I've never seen before. If you don't manage to find it, I'll give some hints.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I would have guessed something along the lines of "% of the population identifying as mormon" (Utah's strongest, lesser in the states above Utah, weakest in the strong baptist areas of the south), except that Oklahoma is unshaded. This suggests to me that it's some sort of third party results map.

You're right indeed. Are you up to find the election and the map key ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

% vote for all third parties combined in 2008 (Nader, GRN, LIB, CON)?

This.

30% shade is less than 1%
40% is between 1 and 1.5%
50% is between 1.5 and 2%
60% is between 2 and 2.5%
Etc...

[Antonio the Sixth]

How many times each party won a State overall ?

[Antonio the Sixth]

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.

[Antonio the Sixth]

What I found interesting is that minus Jackson's performance in 1832 in the Deep South, the best candidate in the Deep South was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, the infamous baby's daddy of modern day American "liberalism".

Oh, please... I think you know how intellectually dishonest this attack is.

Okay I'll admit that alot of those votes were probably just in reaction to a Great Depression, poor whites and blacks were discriminated against at the voting booth, and that it was in 1932.....the first year that FDR ran for office that quite a few of these states voted for him by said margins.
But even without a Great Depression.................do you really think any of those states would've voted for FDR by any amount less than they voted for (at the very least) Al Smith?

Smith was a Catholic. For any other democrat, I have no reason to think they would poll worse than FDR in the climate of Great Depression.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I also used it to demonstrate quite easily how sensitive "liberals" and "progressives" are to any mention of how well FDR did with Southerners (admit, your response was so predictable).

Of course it was predictable. I said your comment was intellectually dishonest because I found it intellectually dishonest, and you eventually admitted that in great part it had nothing to do with your point. I just don't like this way of debating, using provocation in order to support your argumentation.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

And what did you expect him to do ? Campaigning throughout the South saying "you racist bastards, please don't vote for me !" ? Roosevelt was a "consensus builder" because at the time democrats were totally dependent to the South, and taking anti-segregation stances at the time would have been a political suicide. As soon as a new progressive democratic coalition was buil, the party started to evolve on the Civil Rights issue BTW, the GOP could have campaigned for civil rights far before, and without any political risk. If there is a party which should be blamed for how late racial equality has been enforced in the US, it's definitely the GOP. And anyways, Roosevelt was as much as a liberal as a democrat could be at the time, and on a long term he made his party strong enough to be able to afford the loss of the South, and thus to abolish Segregation. Of course this is a personal opinion, but I think we could thank him a bit for what happened 30 years later.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well yes, but anyways I don't think segregation was a very important issue. The South considered it as granted since the beginning of the Century, and the North wasn't really willing to change this anymore.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bitchfest ? It seemed to me that we were discussing.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bitchfest ? It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.

Arguing against you is the same as bitching now ? I don't think I was using a particularly aggressive tone, I simply expressed a disagreement with what you said.
And while, as I said, I felt pretty annoyed by the way you started this debate, I always find worthwhile to discuss with you. So if you are interested in answering to my few points, feel free to do.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second one is just having the first column entirely red and the second entirely blue.

For the second one... I'll guess it is alternating blue/red/blue/red every time.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Bitchfest ? It seemed to me that we were discussing.

Sorry it seems like at various times in your posts you seemed to sound like I offended you in some manner.

Arguing against you is the same as bitching now ? I don't think I was using a particularly aggressive tone, I simply expressed a disagreement with what you said.
And while, as I said, I felt pretty annoyed by the way you started this debate, I always find worthwhile to discuss with you. So if you are interested in answering to my few points, feel free to do.

Sorry man, I had very little sleep that day and couldn't think coherently.
I'm being serious.

But still it's interesting how some of the data matches up that I've collected, like William Bryan, populist extraordinaire, being the best candidate in the American West.

The map was quite interesting indeed.

[Antonio the Sixth]

The second one is just having the first column entirely red and the second entirely blue.

For the second one... I'll guess it is alternating blue/red/blue/red every time.

Bingo!

I knew because I tried several times.

[Antonio the Sixth]

As I pointed out a long time ago, Lincoln still wins with only 39.65% of the vote. It's pretty epic that the anti-Lincoln candidate loses with 60.35% of the vote.

Yes, that would be the biggest discrepancy ever.