(Not only that: the map uses Web Mercator-it is built with Mapbox-so Alaska is severely exaggerated at small scales.) There are, Ken says, other maps that account for population density (not least of which his own dot density map). Exactly the same symbol would be used for an area that has 100,000 voters, 90,000 of whom voted Republican.” It gets worse when that thinly populated precinct is geographically larger. Useful? Absolutely not because of the way the map was made.” It’s a choropleth map that doesn’t account for population: “An area that has 100 voters and 90 of them voted Republican is shown as dark red and a 90% share. Kenneth Field has some objections to the map. But the map also reveals surprising diversity.” The accompanying article sets out what the Times is trying to accomplish: “On the neighborhood level, many of us really do live in an electoral bubble, this map shows: More than one in five voters lived in a precinct where 80 percent of the two-party vote went to Mr. But this map drills down a bit further: showing the results by precinct, not just by county. On the surface it’s a basic choropleth map: nothing new on that front. But that didn’t stop the New York Times from unleashing a new map of the 2016 election results earlier this week. presidential election is nearly two years in the past.
0 kommentar(er)
