Why does Atlas use red for Democrats and blue for Republicans?

[BothSidesEnjoyer]

So I'm still a relatively new user, and the thing that confused me when I joined was that the Republicans were blue and the Democrats were red, even though most refer to the Democrats as blue and the Republicans as red. It took me a couple days to get used to.

I understand when news networks first started using color for the election results, some like NBC used blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, but eventually they stopped and started using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. But why hasn't Atlas started using the method most used today?

[Virginiá]

https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/faq.php

Why are Republicans in blue and Democrats in red (while most other news organizations have the opposite)?

Elephants have a blue hue and donkeys have a red hue (Actually, as a visitor pointed out, elephants are actually gray - but they appear to look more blue than red Red and blue are chosen for the maps because they both are primary colors and because they both are incorporated in the flag. The choice of which party is represented by which color was somewhat arbitrary. I was perhaps influenced by maps that I had seen in the distant past (I still remember the solid blue field of Ronald Reagan's re-election in my hometown newspaper in 1984 - I was 14 at the time). Also, internationally, red typically represents parties on the left side of the political spectrum, i.e. the Democrats here in the U.S.

[BothSidesEnjoyer]

https://uselectionatlas.org/BOTTOM/faq.php

Why are Republicans in blue and Democrats in red (while most other news organizations have the opposite)?

Elephants have a blue hue and donkeys have a red hue (Actually, as a visitor pointed out, elephants are actually gray - but they appear to look more blue than red Red and blue are chosen for the maps because they both are primary colors and because they both are incorporated in the flag. The choice of which party is represented by which color was somewhat arbitrary. I was perhaps influenced by maps that I had seen in the distant past (I still remember the solid blue field of Ronald Reagan's re-election in my hometown newspaper in 1984 - I was 14 at the time). Also, internationally, red typically represents parties on the left side of the political spectrum, i.e. the Democrats here in the U.S.

Oh ok. Thanks for elaborating!

[The Mikado]

So I'm still a relatively new user, and the thing that confused me when I joined was that the Republicans were blue and the Democrats were red, even though most refer to the Democrats as blue and the Republicans as red. It took me a couple days to get used to.

I understand when news networks first started using color for the election results, some like NBC used blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, but eventually they stopped and started using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. But why hasn't Atlas started using the method most used today?

Just adding to the quote Virginia posted from Dave Leip, but this site predates the 2000 election in which Red = GOP Blue = Democrats was standardized (Yes, this site predates the 21st century). As such, Dave would've had to redo a lot of maps he'd already done if he made the switch then.

Atlas is old enough that it prominently displays a link to a 1992 essay that's, to our modern eyes, hilariously optimistic about the Electoral College and the unlikelihood of any serious controversies in its future. Have a taste.

These, then, are the major historical curiosities of the Electoral College system. And because they are so frequently cited as flaws in the system, a few observations on them seem in order.

First, all of these events occurred over a century ago. For the past hundred years, the Electoral College has functioned without incident in every presidential election through two world wars, a major economic depression, and several periods of acute civil unrest. Only twice in this century (the States' Rights Democrats in 1948 and George Wallace's American Independents in 1968) have there been attempts to block an Electoral College victory and thus either force a negotiation for the presidency or else force the decision into the Congress. Neither attempt came close to succeeding. Such stability, rare in human history, should not be lightly dismissed.

Second, each of these events (except 1888) resulted either from political inexperience (as in 1800, 1836, and 1872) or from profound political divisions within the century (as in 1824, 1876, and even 1948 and 1968) which required some sort of higher order political resolution. And all of them were resolved in a peaceable and orderly fashion without any public uprising and without endangering the legitimacy of the sitting president. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a direct election of the president could have resolved events as agreeably.

Finally, as the election of 1888 demonstrates, the Electoral College system imposes two requirements on candidates for the presidency:

that the victor obtain a sufficient popular vote to enable him to govern (although this may not be the absolute majority), and
that such a popular vote be sufficiently distributed across the county to enable him to govern.
Such an arrangement ensures a regional balance of support which is a vital consideration in governing a large and diverse nation (even though in close elections, as in 1888, distribution of support may take precedence over majority of support).

Far from being flaws, then, the historical oddities described above demonstrate the strength and resilience of the Electoral College system in being able to select a president in even the most troubled of times.

[BothSidesEnjoyer]

So I'm still a relatively new user, and the thing that confused me when I joined was that the Republicans were blue and the Democrats were red, even though most refer to the Democrats as blue and the Republicans as red. It took me a couple days to get used to.

I understand when news networks first started using color for the election results, some like NBC used blue for Republicans and red for Democrats, but eventually they stopped and started using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans. But why hasn't Atlas started using the method most used today?

Just adding to the quote Virginia posted from Dave Leip, but this site predates the 2000 election in which Red = GOP Blue = Democrats was standardized (Yes, this site predates the 21st century). As such, Dave would've had to redo a lot of maps he'd already done if he made the switch then.

Atlas is old enough that it prominently displays a link to a 1992 essay that's, to our modern eyes, hilariously optimistic about the Electoral College and the unlikelihood of any serious controversies in its future. Have a taste.

These, then, are the major historical curiosities of the Electoral College system. And because they are so frequently cited as flaws in the system, a few observations on them seem in order.

First, all of these events occurred over a century ago. For the past hundred years, the Electoral College has functioned without incident in every presidential election through two world wars, a major economic depression, and several periods of acute civil unrest. Only twice in this century (the States' Rights Democrats in 1948 and George Wallace's American Independents in 1968) have there been attempts to block an Electoral College victory and thus either force a negotiation for the presidency or else force the decision into the Congress. Neither attempt came close to succeeding. Such stability, rare in human history, should not be lightly dismissed.

Second, each of these events (except 1888) resulted either from political inexperience (as in 1800, 1836, and 1872) or from profound political divisions within the century (as in 1824, 1876, and even 1948 and 1968) which required some sort of higher order political resolution. And all of them were resolved in a peaceable and orderly fashion without any public uprising and without endangering the legitimacy of the sitting president. Indeed, it is hard to imagine how a direct election of the president could have resolved events as agreeably.

Finally, as the election of 1888 demonstrates, the Electoral College system imposes two requirements on candidates for the presidency:

that the victor obtain a sufficient popular vote to enable him to govern (although this may not be the absolute majority), and
that such a popular vote be sufficiently distributed across the county to enable him to govern.
Such an arrangement ensures a regional balance of support which is a vital consideration in governing a large and diverse nation (even though in close elections, as in 1888, distribution of support may take precedence over majority of support).

Far from being flaws, then, the historical oddities described above demonstrate the strength and resilience of the Electoral College system in being able to select a president in even the most troubled of times.

Just adding to the quote Virginia posted from Dave Leip, but this site predates the 2000 election in which Red = GOP Blue = Democrats was standardized (Yes, this site predates the 21st century). As such, Dave would've had to redo a lot of maps he'd already done if he made the switch then. Oh ok.

Atlas is old enough that it prominently displays a link to a 1992 essay that's, to our modern eyes, hilariously optimistic about the Electoral College and the unlikelihood of any serious controversies in its future. Have a taste. I'll take things that didn't age well for 500.