Post random maps here

[Smid]

And using the same method to projet 2016 (yes, I know it is wacky, but this is how it turned out):

You may need to adjust Mass and Arizona for the homestate effect.

I know - I was just saying it because someone had to.

I realize that. However, I intend for these maps to be taken with at least a grain of salt.

[Smid]

This one may have been done already, but here it goes:

I would have guessed 1988 with a 2% swing to Dukakis, but that would also flip Connecticut...

[Smid]

Totally random. Some election causes many states to take a turn. Democrats support tax cuts, and want to throw away the welfare system, but are socially liberal. Republicans are socially conservative, and have a liberal mind in economics...

So basically a libertarian Democratic Party and a populist Republican Party?

[Smid]

Between 1968 and 2004 (no, nothing about independents):

Frequency of changing sides from one election to the next, hence Ohio, Kentucky, Tennessee, Missouri and Nevada have flipped a number of times, whereas Minnesota and DC have consistantly voted for the one party?

[Smid]

I was going to suggest something along the lines of population growth, but I don't think it is because NM would seem to be wrong if that were the case. Is it demographic, economic or political?

[Smid]

Also, it has puzzled me why SD only voted 52%-48% to ban gay marriage when surrounding states voted 73%-27% (ND), 70%-30% (NE), and 67%-33% (MT) to ban it. Does anyone know anything about that? It was in 2006, but that margin was closer than the votes on bans in any other state including Oregon, California, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Colorado. 

An interesting question that I'm going to think about (and probably not come up with an answer, but you never know...)

[Smid]

Is it political? It looks more like one of those sports ones - you know, basketball conferences, or whathaveyou.

[Smid]

Is it political? It looks more like one of those sports ones - you know, basketball conferences, or whathaveyou.

Yeah, it's the way the US is divided into regional jurisdictions for some purpose.  What purpose?

Just guessing, but is it perhaps something to do with the Regions used for economic indicators?

[Smid]

Nothing to do with parties here....

Hint: governors.

It reminded me of one I saw a few months back about the religious beliefs of Governors, especially Pennsylvania being different as is Utah and Nevada, but Palin is certainly not mormon.

[Smid]

What about this one ?

One clue: demography.

Red: states where the capital isn't the most populous city
Blue: states where the most populous city is also the capital

That's great - very original! I couldn't guess that.

[Smid]

Total number of votes for Democrats and Republicans since WWII?

[Smid]

If it weren't for Iowa, I would have said Blue = borders another nation/has a coastline, Red = Does not border another nation/has no coastline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue = Has a saltwater coastline, Red = Does not have a coastline (ie, Great Lakes don't count as a coastline).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue = Has an Atlantic coastline, Red = Does not have an Atlantic coastline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue = Has a Pacific coastline, Red = Does not have a Pacific coastline.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Blue = States bordering either Canada or Mexico (ie, another country), Red = States not bordering another country (coastlines don't count as an international border in this map). The Great Lakes count as a border between Canada and the US - hence Indiana, however Illinois should be coloured Blue.

[Smid]

Correcto.  I should make them harder.

I did those two about forty or so pages back... but that was before the last election, so they've probably changed between the two. Not that it matters anyway.

[Smid]

A repost from a while ago which no one got.

Hint: Governors.

Perhaps something to do with Governors over/under the average age of all Governors?

[Smid]

Number of children per couple.

[Smid]

Popular Vote - R: 48%, D: 47%, I: 5%.

[Smid]

Hint: it has to do with a game

Which game?

But that's what you're expected to find out!

If this is suposed to be Claypoole v. Dent v. Westman, that this is bullszit, you Claypoole hack (still like you, TrueConservative )

Oh, no. Think of an actual game--a board game with a lot of states on it.

Two hints given right there.

Something to do with Risk?

[Smid]

Interesting to see how Republicans seem to have improved in republican States and Democrats in democratic States : the country is far more polarized now than in the 90's...

Although a reasonable amount of that may have been because of Perot's strong showing in 92... if he took Republican voters in Republican states and Democrat voters in Democrat states, and those voters have now returned "home" to their natural party, it may give the impression of polarisation.

[Smid]

Still nobody ?

Can we have another hint?

A wild guess though: Like, for example since California is dark blue, a heavy majority of their Governors have been Republican. In Idaho, a slight majority has been Democrat, making it a pink color. Am I even close?

That sounds good, but Georgia has only had three Republican Governors!

Yeah, right after I posted, I remembered that Perdue was the first GOP Governor since the Civil War.

Could it be what was suggested above, but with Senators, not Governors?

Nope. Georgia has only had four Republican Senators.

Unfortunately you didn't get it. It represents neither Governors or Senators, but instead Representatives. Also, colors don't represent political parties.

Hint #3 : The year of this map is 2003.

I'll give a last hint if you still don't get it, but I think you're able to find it now.

Authorization of the War in Iraq?

Nope, you still don't get it.

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.

Guys, if you don't find it after this hint you're really losers.

Maybe something to do with Lottery winners? Was there a big payout to a NC winner?

[Smid]

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?

[Smid]

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?

[Smid]

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!

[Smid]

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?

[Smid]

Hopefully I got this right.

One last bump, if anyone wants to take a guess.

They all went for Bush in 2004, so I guess something to do with that. Iowa and New Mexico didn't go for Bush in 2000, and they're shaded a lighter colour...

[Smid]

Hopefully I got this right.

One last bump, if anyone wants to take a guess.

They all went for Bush in 2004, so I guess something to do with that. Iowa and New Mexico didn't go for Bush in 2000, and they're shaded a lighter colour...

West Virginia...?

You're on the right track.

I'd been going to suggest that it was sort of the Republican "winning streak" - how many elections in a row it had been won by the Republican candidate - ie. in 2004 IA and NM were just once, WV was twice... except it can't be that because there were other states that should have been just twice, and others that should have been shaded darker.