Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

3D Election Results Map by County

michael posted more than 9 years ago | from the tufte-would-be-proud dept.

United States 463

FlopEJoe writes "There are many web-based electoral maps available on the regular news sites (Electorial-vote, CNN) but this image 3d county results seemed more profound to me. Wish I had more to say about it but I don't want to cloud the discussion. I think it speaks for itself and the spin-masters should enjoy it."

cancel ×

463 comments

What's so profound? (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733749)

Coastal city dwellers are vote liberal. No shock there. Those cities have lots of people. No shock there. The rest of the country is largely conservative. Again, no shock there.

You forgot Hawaii! (2, Insightful)

JHromadka (88188) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733764)

Hawaii, that is one of the members of our coal^H^H^Hstates. :) /Poland

Re:You forgot Hawaii! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734428)

microsoft 0wnz apple!!

Correlations (2, Interesting)

tod_miller (792541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733775)

Because the peaks are due to population, this must correlate somewhat to the skyscraper distribution graph also.

What software was used?

Re:Correlations (3, Informative)

gi-tux (309771) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733947)

Well, since it is on the ESRI site, I would have to make the assumption that they probably used ArcInfo. After all that is their product and it can export a JPEG. However, it could be done with ArcIMS (also their product).

It just shows what everyone has known... (-1, Flamebait)

Pig Hogger (10379) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733798)

that ignorant hick-country rednecks vote for Shrub.

Re:It just shows what everyone has known... (1)

Crustydub (676022) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733835)

Quoting ESRI's site "Better decisions through modeling and mapping our world" Profound on all levels

Re:It just shows what everyone has known... (3, Insightful)

skadus (821655) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733918)

And you'll probably continue to see that happen, too, with a Democratic party platform of 'you're a fucktard if you don't agree with us'. Great way to try to bring the opposition to your side, too. 'You're a fucking idiot. Vote for us!' If I hadn't voted for Badnarik I would have voted for Bush partly out of spite.

Believe it or not, there *are* some people in the country that *are* intelligent, that ::GASP!:: don't agree with you! OMFG!

There were a lot of people who voted for all the wrong reasons. But there are also a large number of people who thought about the decision at hand before making it. Insulting them only distances them further from you.

Yes, IHBT, and IHL, but it bothers me when people do this shit (which isn't to say the Right doesn't do it also... another reason I voted for Badnarik). HAND.

It just shows what everyone has known...Hate no go (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734521)

"There were a lot of people who voted for all the wrong reasons. But there are also a large number of people who thought about the decision at hand before making it. Insulting them only distances them further from you.

Yes, IHBT, and IHL, but it bothers me when people do this shit (which isn't to say the Right doesn't do it also... another reason I voted for Badnarik). HAND."

Speaking of iritating things.

"(Conservative columnist in the liberal-leaning Boston Globe gives advice
to Democrats: hatred doesn't win)
HATRED LOST.
For four years, Americans watched and listened as President Bush was
demonized with a savagery unprecedented in modern American politics. For
four years they saw him likened to Hitler and Goebbels, heard his
supporters called brownshirts and racists, his administration dubbed "the
43d Reich." For four years they took it all in: "Bush" spelled with a
swastika instead of an `s,' the depictions of the president as a drooling
moron or a homicidal liar, the poisonous insults aimed at anyone who might
consider voting for him. And then on Tuesday they turned out to vote and
handed the haters a crushing repudiation.

Bush was reelected with the highest vote total in American history. He is
the first president since 1988 to win a majority of the popular vote. He
increased his 2000 tally by 8 million votes and saw his party not only
keep its majorities in the House and Senate but enlarge them. And he did
it all in the face of an orgy of hatred.

The smears and rancor were bottomless and venomous. Michael Moore accused
Bush of being in cahoots with Osama bin Laden. George Soros said the
president's policies reminded him of the Nazis. Cameron Diaz warned that
if Bush was reelected, rape would become legal. Randi Rhodes told her
radio audience that Bush, like Fredo in "The Godfather," should be taken
out and shot. Whoopi Goldberg headlined a New York fund-raiser in which
Bush was called a "thug" and a "killer." Howard Dean speculated publicly
about the "interesting theory" that Bush knew what was going to happen on
Sept. 11 but kept silent.

The novelist Nicholson Baker went so far as to publish a novel that
revolves around Bush's possible assassination.

John Kerry never sank to that level of slime, but he never repudiated it,
either. Instead of condemning the foul things said about Bush at that New
York fund-raiser, for example, Kerry told the audience that "every
performer tonight . . . conveyed to you the heart and soul of our
country."

If Kerry had urged his supporters to speak about Bush with the same
courtesy they would want Bush's supporters to speak about him, voters
would have been impressed. If he had made it clear that he is disgusted
when Bush is compared to Hitler or Mussolini and ashamed that such
comparisons could be made by people backing him, he would have won the
public's admiration. If he had insisted that Michael Moore leave the
Democratic convention instead of being given a place of honor next to
Jimmy Carter, he would have been rewarded with a surge in the polls.
Instead he said nothing -- and the voters noticed.

Bush-bashers reveled in their animosity -- many openly and proudly
embraced the word "hatred" -- but I wondered all along whether they
weren't driving away far more voters than they were attracting. "Their
unabashed loathing may energize and excite them, but they are doing their
candidate and their country no favors," I wrote in this space in July.
"For most Americans, hatred is a political turn-off." Now that the object
of their malevolence has won more votes than any previous president, will
they consider giving up the politics of hatred in favor of something
healthier and more constructive?

And now that the electorate has once again chosen to keep control of the
White House and both houses of Congress in Republican hands, will the
Democratic Party take a long hard look in the mirror and try to understand
why it has fallen into disfavor?

I told several colleagues on Tuesday that I knew what I was going to write
if Kerry won the election. I would have said that the refusal of so many
liberals and Democrats to accept Bush as a legitimate president had badly
infected American politics since 2000, and that it would be disastrous if
conservatives and Republicans allowed themselves to become equally
envenomed. I planned to write that while I'd had many tough things to say
about Kerry over the course of this campaign -- and while I wasn't backing
away from any of them -- the voters had now spoken and their judgment had
to be respected. When he took the oath of office, Kerry would become my
president, too.

Well, Kerry didn't win, so this is a different column. But 55 million
people voted for him, and that is no small thing. However much I may
disagree with the choice they made, I don't regard those voters as fools
or knaves or idiots. I regard them as fellow Americans. That is how we
should all regard each other when an election season comes to a close. In
his concession speech yesterday, Kerry said that when he telephoned Bush
to congratulate him, they spoke of "the desperate need for unity, for
finding the common ground, coming together. Today I hope that we can begin
the healing."

It was a furious contest for power, but the election is over, and the fury
should end. We are all Republicans, we are all Democrats. And none of us
should be seduced by the haters.

Jeff Jacoby's e-mail address is jacoby@globe.com.
"

Of course the "haters" don't see things his way.

I think the problem isn't "some of those complaints weren't legitimate", but the way in which the issue was approached. Why do people think that demonizing would ever convince people that they should change their position? Drawing horns and a pointy tail on his picture is something juveniles do.

Also to be quite honest the hatred is a caustic, and who wants to be bathed in a caustic for the next four years? Do something positive with all that hatred. You all have four years to do all the civic duties you neglected for all the previous years (Do I REALLY need to tell this audiance what those are, DO I?)

Did you all pay attention to who was being voted into congress? What about your local government? Or was everyone so focused on Bush they forgotten about all the rest? I chose to take a long term view to the problem by voting libertarian for the lowest positions. Any of them may not be president, but I've laid the foundation so that they can work their way up to that position, or other positions of power.

That's how you change the world. Not by throwing your emotions at a problem, but your intelligence.

I was modded down as troll for saying this (3, Interesting)

xutopia (469129) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733801)

when I feel it is totally legitimate to ask. Has anyone ever looked at intelligence/education as a factor for party affiliation? Are the more educated people in the Bush or Kerry camp? I'm just wondering here.

In France there was a very racist party (Front National) and the people who would vote for them were on average less educated than people who voted for other parties. The FN leader, Le Pen, said it had to do with the propaganda we have in schools against the FN. Which of course wasn't believed by anyone but the people without an education.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

illuvata (677144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733831)

Look at the exit polls in the CNN link.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

nelsonal (549144) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733852)

Because of the relative size of the two groups, I'd be very surprised if there was much difference between the two groups supporters education levels. The reason you got modded down as a troll is that there was a hoax graphic floating around the net that suggested that every blue state was smarter than every red state (or something close to it). Would be interesting to see that graphic faded to show margins of difference.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (5, Informative)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733857)

Yeah, CNN has the exit polls [cnn.com] - just look for "EDUCATION" and you should find it.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (3, Insightful)

edalytical (671270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734257)

That's assuming that education is a measure of intelligence. IMHO it's a measure of how well you can do what you are told. I have found that I get the best grades when I assume the instructors ideals. Writing papers or answering questions from that point of view is the surest way to an A.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

strike2867 (658030) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734329)

Wouldn't that only apply to high school, college only in some cases. Definetly not Post Graduate work.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

edalytical (671270) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734425)

I think it applies to college a great deal. Call me a slow learner, but I didn't learn to write papers from my instructors point of view until college. As for postgraduate work, I think I would be walking a thin line if I said it was still a large factor.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (4, Informative)

NeuroKoan (12458) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733873)

Education in this considered in the US to be very liberal. In fact, if you listen to the Republicans enough, they will dismiss almost anything a college kid says by saying "Oh, just another product of the liberal University system in the US"

So, truth be told, the more someone is educated, the more likely they are to be liberal. This is not to say that Republicans are stupid (in fact, I think they are quite intelligent).

Anyways, here is the breakdown you were asking for.

Election Breakdown by IQ [geekgossip.net] Any doubts at the validity, the author provides his sources, so feel free to double check.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (5, Interesting)

Zelet (515452) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733952)

The United States Democratic Party is considered to be slightly right of center of every other western country on this planet. So I would have to disagree with you about our education system being "liberal."

If learning about evolution and not creationism in science class is liberal - than I guess we are for now.

To me, I think the republican party stands for religion more than anything else. They have lost the principles of small government and fiscal responsibility. They have also lost the ideals of isolationism in world affairs. The one defining characteristic of the current republican party is Christian "values." Of course affordable healthcare so people don't die in the street is also a value. Giving people a wage they can live off of is also a value. But those don't count I guess.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (3, Insightful)

Hungus (585181) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734046)

Of course affordable healthcare so people don't die in the street is also a value. Giving people a wage they can live off of is also a value. But those don't count I guess
Sure they are of value, they are just not provided for in the constitution as being in the domain of the Federal govt. Thus constitutionally, the feds shouldn't be dealing with it anyways. If you honestly feel th efederal govt should provide these things thats fine, but then we need to modify the constitution, as the federal government is only entitled to the powers and responsibilities granted there in.

Wages are earned. (4, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734239)

"Giving people a wage they can live off of is also a value"

Wages are earned, not given. They are earned by doing work for the value of the wage. Things really get messed up if someone outside sets the value of the wage without regard to the value of the work. Forcing companies to overpay workers at some government-set wage that has nothing to do with the work also demeans real work and turns the whole affair into a welfare program: a forced handout.

Every time the government arbitrarily sets the mininum wage to be higher, thousands of people end up losing their jobs, as it forces companies to try to get by without low-end jobs. When I point it out to people who favor the "minimum wage", the typical response is that these jobs are worthless: a poor person is better off getting nothing, as compared to getting $17,000 a year.

As long as you are arbitrarily setting wages without regard to value, why not set the minimum wage to $1,000 an hour? It will make everyone a millionaire. Why stop at a low value?

Re:Wages are earned. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734304)

Or hundreds of small business owners might be forced to give up their Viper collection and yacht, until we get over this fucking recession.

But that's not "fair" to the poor millionaire - I mean, he's struggling every bit as much as I am, in the face of Big Business.

Fuck me with a spoon.

You got it. (1, Flamebait)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734354)

"Or hundreds of small business owners might be forced to give up their Viper collection and yacht, until we get over this fucking recession"

You've got it. The Michael Moore argument that small business is the cause of economic evil, and we must wipe it out in order to progress.

Re:Wages are earned. (-1, Flamebait)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734406)

Or hundreds of small business owners might be forced to give up their Viper collection and yacht, until we get over this fucking recession.

But that's not "fair" to the poor millionaire - I mean, he's struggling every bit as much as I am, in the face of Big Business.

Yup that evil boat owning SOB who provides people with jobs, punish him. Make it less attractive for people to start or invest in businesses..

MOD PARENT UP (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733956)

Here [attenuation.net] is the same data in slimmer html table form, if the 175k png doesn't appeal to you.

It's a hoax (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733963)

Check the author's sources. They prove it's a hoax that started in 2000.

That pages uses www.chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm [chrisevans3d.com] as a source. It'll redirect you to attenuation.net/files/iq.htm [attenuation.net] . From there, you can find www.sq.4mg.com/IQschools.htm [4mg.com] which has estimates for state IQ based on ACT/SAT tests. You'll notice that the IQs are much more evenly distributed. If you follow his link to http://www.sq.4mg.com/IQ-States.htm [4mg.com] , you'll see links at the bottom to the unverified hoax IQ scores [4mg.com] used in your chart. Someone simply updated the 2000 Gore/Bush chart for 2004.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734056)

Actually, I've found that the most educated group tends to be libertarians and atheists/agnostics.

Democrats have their own brain-numbed dogma. Democrat families beget democrat children and so on. Just like republicans. Being a democrat doesn't make you more thoughtful or intelligent. You're sucked into just as much pointless and foundless rhetoric as the next guy.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

ERJ (600451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734144)

Ah, another "gullible". Check this:

Satire gone bad [snopes.com]

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734212)

There isn't a vast different in IQs on that list, except at the very bottom.

But christ, Idaho and Mississippi are 87 and 85?!. Isn't an IQ of 80 considered "functionally retarded"?

Very sad that an entire state is just *barely* escaping legitimately labeled functional retardation.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733879)

Well, from the people I know or have talked to in bars and on the street- I can say that the more intelligent (not necessarily more educated) people all supported Kerry. The less intelligent (but not necessarily less educated) all went for Bush.

I believe that religion factors into this as well. People who are more religious all like Bush. People who are less or not religious at all support Kerry. I guess this could factor into intelligence as well, as it seems the smarter in general you are less likely you are to believe in God or other religious tokens/aspects.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (2, Insightful)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733976)

"People who agreed with me are smarter than people who don't." Perhaps we should rephrase this a bit: Since I am human, and have any sort of an ego (that, in itself, is not bad - it's quite healthy), I think that I am smart. Therefore, anyone who agrees with me must also be smart.

I'm still waiting for the first objective post in favour of Kerry in politics.slashdot.org. Of course, the same could be said for Bush, so anyone taking this as a jab should consider how meaningless of a jab it is.

Same could be said of your religious comment - since you're likely non-religious, you assume that people who disagree with you must be less smart. That must place you at an IQ of at least 180 - since Einstein was still Jewish.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734225)

"People who agreed with me are smarter than people who don't."

Notice that I did not say that. I said that more intelligent people supported Kerry, and less intelligent people supported Bush. The general intelligence level of an individual is easy to determine- Just have a conversation with them. If they have command of a multi-syllable vocabulary, can converse on a variety of subjects, prove points, and argue thoughtfully without resorting to "I win! You're a Loser!" and "Because I said so, I'm right!" then they are intelligent. The people who cannot do these things as well or at all are less intelligent (and were supporters of Bush as I pointed out in my grandparent post).

You assume I'm non-religious. While that may be true I have no issue with people believing what they want to as long as they don't try to force it on me. Hey, I'd love for these people to be right- God, afterlife, the whole thing. I'd gratefully bow down to their superior knowledge and beliefs for millenia in the afterlife. Unfortunately if I am right, there is no opportunity for "I told you so" when we're just decomposing matter burried in the ground. With that noted, some VERY intelligent people are/were religious as you point out, I would put Stephen Hawking into that category along with Einstein.

As for my IQ, I was tested when I was younger. Unfortunately I fell short of your estimate of my intelligence, but not by very much.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

Tanktalus (794810) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734420)

You didn't say it explicitly, but you continue to imply it. And you continue to insult those of us who do have 140+ IQs and still support Bush. (I'll repeat from an earlier comment: I still think IQ is just a useless number used to label people, but let's pretend for a minute that it means something.) It's a lot easier to have an intelligent conversation with people who agree with you than with those who disagree. The real test of maturity is having an intelligent conversation with those who disagree with you.

I think you're mistaking maturity for intelligence. And I'm sure that when you come away from those "I win! You're a loser" type conversations, your adversary (for lack of a better term) is thinking to him/herself, "What an idiot" ... not too far from your thoughts about them.

Don't get me wrong - I have trouble sometimes being charitable to those who disagree with me. If you could find some of my old Fidonet posts from my teenage years, you would, however, be able to see plainly how far I've matured ;-)

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734462)

While that may be true I have no issue with people believing what they want to as long as they don't try to force it on me.

Yea its not like you said

I guess this could factor into intelligence as well, as it seems the smarter in general you are less likely you are to believe in God or other religious tokens/aspects.

Yea you have no issues with the gun toating inbread bible thumping morons so long as they leave you alone..

All the geniuses in the urban ghettos vote KERRY (1)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733892)

The extremely smart and the extremely stupid support Kerry...average folk support Bush

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733900)

Numbers from CNN Exit Polling [cnn.com]

BUSH KERRY NADER
No High School (4%) 49% 50% 0%
H.S. Graduate (22%) 52% 47% 0%
Some College (32%) 54% 46% 0%
College Graduate (26%) 52% 46% 1%
Postgrad Study (16%) 44% 55% 1%

BUSH KERRY NADER
No College Degree (58%) 53% 47% 0%
College Graduate (42%) 49% 49% 1%

Overall, things aren't terribly lopsided one way or the other. The one area Kerry has a lead, postgrads, is pretty close to it was in 2000, so I don't think many people at that level shifted much away from the President.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

benhocking (724439) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734361)

Actually, Kerry also has a lead in the no high school crowd. This proves the old saw: "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing," where little in this case means high school degree up to bachelor's degree. :) Obviously, one could also look at the no high school degree as the people who are most likely to be in poverty and therefore most likely to be wanting a change. I think it would be interesting to combine statistics for wealth and education. I suspect that those who have less wealth and more education (the combination, that is) are more likely to vote for Kerry, but that's just an uneducated guess. :)

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

ConceptJunkie (24823) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734414)

Maybe because post-grads are not in touch with the real world? This isn't really meant as a joke. There are lots of really intelligent people who have no idea what the average person is like or what his life is like.

There is a slight (probably not statistically significant) trend up for Bush until the very last item. I find that not surprising because at that level of education, people are more likely to have radically different views than most. While we can argue who represents the mainstream more, I would think that radical views held by very educated people would probably skew towards the Democratic side of things.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (4, Funny)

ralphclark (11346) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733919)

You forgot that education and intelligence are two different things. The exit polls reveal that there is not much of a correlation between political affiliation and education. They don't say anything about intelligence though.

Not surprising really - can you imagine the pollsters hanging around outside with their clipboards asking everyone: "hello? Who did you vote for? What? Are you stupid?"

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733962)

Given the exit polling - that may be what they did.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (3, Insightful)

clambake (37702) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734010)

The exit polls reveal that there is not much of a correlation between political affiliation and education.

True, but the exit polls also show that Kerry won...

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

ArsonSmith (13997) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734385)

While a college degree is not a guarantee of intelligence I would say any given random sample of college educated people would have a higher average intelligence that then a similar sample of non college graduates. Sure there are stupid MBAs and Phds and smart High School dropouts, but they are the exception, not the rule.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

Xetrov (267777) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734025)

I found this [geekgossip.net] table very interesting.

Might not be exactly what you are looking for, but there does seem to be a fairly strong correlation between stupid^H^H^H^H^H^Hpeople with low intelligence and their choice for president.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

N3WBI3 (595976) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734488)

Yea I mean those morons probably also buy into Internet Hoaxes [4mg.com] and pass them off as proof that they are correct..

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734035)

Have not seen a legitimate one for 2004, but this has 2000 [4mg.com]
Thier are some spreading around for 2004 but all they did was take one of the liberal hoax ones from 2000 and change the states around, and false number are still used.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (4, Insightful)

Just Some Guy (3352) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734148)

when I feel it is totally legitimate to ask. Has anyone ever looked at intelligence/education as a factor for party affiliation? Are the more educated people in the Bush or Kerry camp? I'm just wondering here.

I'll go out on a limb and say that Kerry got the more educated vote, but that it's correlative instead of causative.

Basically, city dwellers tend to be more liberal than rural residents, who are famously conservative. This probably has more to do with the facts of life in the respective locations than anything else. That is, densely populated environments tend to foster an atmosphere of mutual dependence (because if they didn't, the 10,000,000 people packed into a small area would probably melt down), whereas farmers pretty much have to be self-reliant. In harvest season, you'll help your neighbor if you can, but your first priority is getting your own work done first because that's what's going to feed your family for the next year.

I don't think that either of these ways of living is inherently better; each is well-suited for its own niche. So, I think it's perfectly rational for rural populations to be more conservative than city populations.

If you buy that so far, then consider where educated people tend to go after they graduate. You just got a PhD in particle physics. Are you likely to move to a Midwestern town of 15,000? No. You're going to go where there are jobs for people with your qualifications, and that pretty much exclusively means a largish city. And when you get there, you'll probably find your politics sliding to the left to match those of your colleagues and neighbors that were already there.

I don't think intelligence directly maps to political leanings at all. I've personally known plenty of smart (and dumb) people on either end of the spectrum (or corner of the graph if you're a 2d-map fan). I do think, though, that your intelligence has an effect on where you'll live, and you're place of residence has a large effect on your political beliefs.

So, I'll stick with my original statement that educated people tend to vote for Kerry.

PS. My wife and I are both educated (her: DPM, me: BS) conservatives. If you interpret my message to say that Kerry supporters are smarter, then you missed the entire point.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

galaxyboy (825541) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734392)

There are definitely more PhD and educated types in cities. However, I would have to say that a fairly high percentage of city dwellers are uneducated as well.

I would be interested to know what percentage of PhD's got their doctorates in fields with no earning potential outside of the University. I think a lot of the left-leaning has to do with field of study. I went to graduate school in Champaign, IL. There is a push for a graduate employees union but it tends to be among liberal arts majors for the most part. Most of my engineering buddies had no interest is such a thing.

Certainly, the base of the democratic party is among these types of educated people. They are intelligent people who believe that all fields of study are created equal and should be compensated and funded equally. I am not saying that is wrong but it certainly fuels some of the fire against the corporate right.

Re:I was modded down as troll for saying this (1)

glowimperial (705397) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734263)

Yes.

A lot of pre-election data was gathered on this subject. As usual the more educated someone is (in terms of degrees) the more likely they were to support progressive/democratic candidates, such as Kerry. Data in previous elections mirrors this trend, so no suprise there. Don't be too quick to equate education with intelligence, though. They are two very seperate things.

Also, along a different line, Bush supporters were vastly more likely to be grossly misinformed about key facts involving terrorism, the war in Iraq, and the positions of both candidates. In numerous surveys/studies I saw data that basically said "a greater number of Bush supporters than Kerry supporters have absolutely no idea what the facts are regarding the current state of the world."

I chalk a Bush win in this election up to 2 things.

1) A poor relationship between the electorate and the facts at issue in the election.

2) The tremendous political engine of the evangelical Christian population in the midwest.

Isolation (3, Funny)

the darn (624240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733810)

Cool! I can see my house from here...

It's kinda funny to see my county all alone and blue on the sea of red (Travis Co,TX).

prettier map (4, Informative)

deanpole (185240) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733829)

A better looking map is at http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004/ [princeton.edu]

Re:prettier map (1)

asimy (631991) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734427)

...and a much better reflection of the results in each county. This map is also more encouraging for those of us on the blue side of the spectrum than ESRI's winner-take-all map.

Why 3D? (1)

avalys (221114) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733830)

Why make it 3D? It would be much more readable if they just adjusted the shade of blue/red according to how much of the vote Kerry/Bush got.

Re:Why 3D? (1)

Anonymous Cowtard (573891) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733865)

Readable? I think the "point" of the map is VERY readable, since it's showing how the areas of high Democratic support are clustered with the major population centers. I don't think a slightly diff shade of red could convey the scale of this as well as the 3D spikes.

Re:Why 3D? (1)

BigBadDude (683684) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733882)



http://www.princeton.edu/~rvdb/JAVA/election2004 /

Re:Why 3D? (1)

fred ugly (125371) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733889)

It still wouldn't indicate the differences in population density. If you look at a flat map, even with the color shading, you really can't see how the people are spread out.

Re:Why 3D? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733984)

>Why make it 3D?

because it looks cool.

why else?

Re:Why 3D? (2, Informative)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734275)

I "fixed" the map a bit by coloring just four of the county result bars with the (rough) proportional amount of Republican votes.

Note that I do *not* think this is a good way to view the info. You'll see that I tinted the top of the bars. If I did this for all blue counties, everything would appear red. This is a very very misleading map any way you draw it. Hopefully, this is a bit less misleading than the original:

"Fixed" Map [cheshirehall.net]

--
Evan

Electoral College (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733841)

Yep... let's just trash the Electoral College. We should only let the political opinion of the people who live at the spikes steer the country. Not like people outside of those spikes might have different POVs than those in the spikes, since we all know that rural and urban environments have exactly the same needs.

Electoral College Democracy (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733968)

In a democracy, the vote of the people counts.

In the Electoral College, the vote of the majority (people living in cities) is diluted to give people living in the suburbs, and Southern Slave Owners, an increased vote. Since we no longer have slave owners, it's kind of moot to continue having the Electoral College. If you read the Federalist Papers, you'll discover that the founding fathers weren't real keen on giving Joe Schmoe a vote, and if you read History, you'll find that slave owners wanted their slaves to count as three-fifths of a person for voting purposes, but had no intention of giving them the right to vote.

The point of a Democracy is that the majority of the people get to determine things. If you do anything to dilute the power of the majority (Electoral College, Aparthied, for example), then you're not living in a Democracy.

You can argue all you want about increasing the power of rural voters, but that still doesn't mean it's right -- or that it's a democracy.

Senators weren't directly elected by the people until the 1920's. Things can, do, and should change.

Re:Electoral College Democracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734001)

No, slave owners wanted slaves to count as a full person for voting, while non-slave owners wanted them to not count at all. That's why there was the three-fifths compromise. Part of the compromise also didn't allow the Union to outlaw slavery for a few decades.

Re:Electoral College Democracy (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734296)

This post is Complete Drivel.

We live in a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy.

Very few times in our History (4, to be exact) has the Electoral College not represented the popular vote of the people. In each of these cases, a strong argument can be made that the Electoral College selected the better Presidential candidate against the will of the people, which is exactly what was intended.

The EC was initially setup because political parties were not expected to be formed and candidates were not expected to campaign for votes. The function of the EC was modified slightly twice to its current basis for the 1804 election, to prevent ties in the EC and to allow for the operation of political parties.

Nowhere during this time was there consideration for participation of common people, women, or slaves in the voting process. Your statements about cities vs. suburbs and slaves are fiction.

No one can provide a single instance in the last 200 years where the current Electoral College system failed in the selection of a Presidential Candidate.

Change for the sake of change is ridiculous, and its no reason to change the U.S. Constitution.

Re:Electoral College (2, Insightful)

wonkavader (605434) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734242)

Slow down a little there. What you're talking about is trashing systems which weigh districts differently, not trashing the Electoral College. The Electoral College is simply one, maniacly absurd method of doing that.

You can accomplish what you're talking about in any number of ways. Why stick with a bad one?

For instance, you know when the Electoral College was set up, you were voting for people to go to the College. When you cast your vote a couple of days ago, you were not (traditionally) voting for Bush or Kerry, you were voting for Fred Something to go to the College and vote for Bush or Kerry for you. Electors names used to be on the ballots in Illinois (my state) -- they're not anymore.

Think about this: Why break into 50 states for elections? If it's winner take all in the states, why not break the country into 3 zones. Make it winner take all in those. Or just 1 zone. Whoops, wait, that would just be a popular election. Wouldn't it make sense to break into smaller zones, not larger? In what way does having all of California in one zone make sense? This would allow more resolution to aid rural areas, not less.

The College needs an overhaul. Rural and urban centers need a balance method. These are not mutually exclusive.

Urban regions surrounded (1)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733850)

It appears as though the GOP "red" has enveloped the country and surrounded the largest population centers of the US. How ironic, the color, geography, some might say, like a metastasizing cancer, or a map from Invasion of the Body Snatchers. Im just playing devil's advocate, I'm a registered Republican.

Re:Urban regions surrounded (3, Interesting)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733987)

Kind of reminds you of pre-Communist China. Mao Tse Tung controlled the countryside and what's-his-name controlled the cities.

There were no fixed colors until this year (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734051)

In past elections, different networks have used red and blue to represent different parties. It wasn't until 2000 that everyone seemed to settle on this color scheme.

Re:There were no fixed colors until this year (1)

scupper (687418) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734145)

Yeah, I always remembered GOP as "Blue". Maybe they'l switch hit in '06 for Congressional and Gubernatorial races. What would be a better color scheme? Blue and Grey? Nah, Pink and Purple? Maybe some iridescent colors....

Ummm... (1)

Bluesman (104513) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733851)

What does this mean?

Is the height of the stacks tied to population or numbers of voters or to the margin of victory in that county, percentage or absolute?

This isn't particularly self-explanatory. A key would be nice.

Re:Ummm... (4, Insightful)

JabberWokky (19442) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733954)

As far as I can tell, this is utterly misleading. Unless I'm wrong, what this does is take the county, draw a bar with the height of the population, and then color it with the majority of votes - discarding any other votes.

That is to say, a high population area may have 48% Republican votes and 49% Democratic votes but the entire tall bar is colored blue.

--
Evan

Re:Ummm... (2, Interesting)

Gaetano (142855) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734252)

This page is hosted by ESRI. They write graphical information systems software (gis). I think the intent of this image is to illustrate the capability of their software, not so much to illustrate the election results. Looks like using election results was just a provocative way to get someone to look at their software. I couldn't find where this is linked from on their site. You could say linking to it here is puting it out of context. I would expect to see this image in an add for their product in one of the IT rags.

Re:Ummm... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734431)

Hmm.. Exactly like what the Electoral College does, then? (Well, in most states anyway)

Not all blue areas are large prosperous cities (3, Informative)

SpaFF (18764) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733853)

While most of the blue areas are located in large metro areas, this is not always the case. That blue streak that runs east-west across Alabama is an area known as the "Black Belt" and is one of the poorest most underdeveloped parts of the state.

Re:Not all blue areas are large prosperous cities (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10733926)

Also, not all large cities are prosperous.

In fact, most of them are shit-holes.

What a pretty red map! (2, Funny)

CreamOfWheat (593775) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733871)

..Makes me proud to be an American Now we don't have to ask France and Germany for permission to defend ourselves

Votes by IQ (2, Insightful)

krs-one (470715) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733915)

Don't know if this is true or not (it looks pretty, so I'm inclined to say yeah, its true), but this map [geekgossip.net] is pretty interesting.

-Vic

Re:Votes by IQ (1)

TykeClone (668449) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734012)

Iowa hasn't called it yet - will the "average IQ" change if it gets called for Kerry?

It's a hoax (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734016)

Recycled from 2000 [slashdot.org] .

Re:Votes by IQ (5, Insightful)

Shihar (153932) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734031)

Just realize the statistical fallacies with taking that too far. Namely, correlation does not mean causation. For instance, I would bet that Boston (where I live) has a higher IQ then the middle of nowhere in Texas. You would also see that nowhere Texas votes Republican and Boston votes Democrat. If you assume it is because of IQ, you just made a very large assumption.

Democrats are more concerned with city issues. The city issues often come at the expense more rural areas. If I live in nowhere Texas and a Democrat blathers on about welfare and the environment, he isn't speak to me. Such a person probably has minimal expense and so even if he doesn't have a job has little need for welfare. The issue with the environment is a complete non-issue when you are surrounded by nothing but clean air. A Republican talking about cutting taxes on the other hand does appeal to such a person because it might very well be one of their biggest expenses.

You also need to realize that cities inflate their IQ with college students. College students have decidedly fewer issues they have to worry about and tend to be very liberal. As a college student doing the thing that 'feels right' is far more appealing then a tax break because chances are that college student doesn't pay a significant (or any) income tax.

I am not saying that the above explanations are the correct ones, just giving an example as to why I wouldn't take the analogy too far.

Re:Votes by IQ (1)

will_die (586523) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734055)

Except theses numbers are wrong. This was a standard liberal lie that was put out in 2000, they took the old numbers and changed the winner as needed.

Re:Votes by IQ (0, Troll)

bhima (46039) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734131)

Wow! I had no idea the average IQ was so low. Here I'd been under the impression that GWB was dumber than the average American.

The BBC had it right! he is gearing his speeches to his average audience.

Re:Votes by IQ (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734221)

The average IQ is (around) 100. It varies place to place.

Re:Votes by IQ (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734311)


Wow! I had no idea the average IQ was so low. Here I'd been under the impression that GWB was dumber than the average American.

That statement doesn't make sense. The average IQ can never be low or high. It is always 100. It is DEFINED as 100. The IQ scale is not an absolute one, but a comparitive one. If everyone in the world got smarter by some fixed amount, their IQ's would not change (even though their intelligence did), and the average IQ would still be 100.

Nothing like criticizing people for being dumb - then making a big error while you're doing it.

Re:Votes by IQ (1)

ERJ (600451) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734182)

It's not true. Based on a satire piece that "fooled many a news publication and is still occasionally cited as a genuine by gullible reporters".

Snopes talks about it here [snopes.com]

Re:Votes by IQ (1)

wcbarksdale (621327) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734416)

RTFL. This is a different comparison, by state.

Misleading (don't overlook this) (2, Insightful)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733922)

Hidden entirely under this is the important fact that a red county is typically not all red, and a blue county is not all typically blue.

In other words, a county shows all red even if it is 51% Bush / 49% Kerry. Just so we remember that there is a lot of red in the blue counties, and vice-versa.

Doesn't look right to me (1)

zenyu (248067) | more than 9 years ago | (#10733948)


There should be a huge blue spike in New York City, it went 85% for Kerry and has a larger population than chigago which had a large spike.

Re:Doesn't look right to me (2, Interesting)

kiolbasa (122675) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734128)

New York City is split into several counties/boroughs, and on the map it looks like it was split up that way. There are several tall but narrow sections. Chicago and some surrounding area is shown as one huge Cook County spike.

Re:Doesn't look right to me (1)

Doesn't_Comment_Code (692510) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734209)

There should be a huge blue spike in New York City

You know it's sort of strange that those big spikes look like skyscrapers...

Another Fun Experiment (1)

cyranoVR (518628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734047)

Take this map of the United States at Night [nasa.gov] and superimpose it over a map of "Red/Blue" Counties [usatoday.com]

Notice anything?

Re:Another Fun Experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734081)

Most cities, particularly those on the coasts, are liberal voting. This isn't a huge shock to anyone. This is also where tons of people live, and thus where the bright spots on the map are. Nothing more to it than that.

Re:Another Fun Experiment (2, Funny)

wscott (20864) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734123)

Kerry supporter don't turn their light off at night and increase our dependance on foreign oil.

Damn Liberials!

Another Interesting Map (2, Informative)

cyranoVR (518628) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734132)

Sorry, but I've got one more:

Purple Mountain Majesties [boingboing.net]

America isn't really "Red" or "Blue." It's Purple.

Well, aside from Utah, anyway :-\

Re:Another Interesting Map (1)

belg4mit (152620) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734305)

Thank you! This is far more relevant than the Red vs. Blue everyone else is spewing. I was waiting for one of these for this years results.

what's it based on (1)

alatesystems (51331) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734151)

Even on the site [esri.com] that the image is linked from, it doesn't say what the heights represent.

I saw another poster suggest population, but that doesn't make sense because so much is flat.

I submit that it is based upon the sway of the vote. The higher the plateau, the farther away from 50% split the vote was, and the color indicates the higher sway of votes. It also explains the higher blue plateaus in the coastal/liberal areas.

FWIW, I don't appear on that map; I voted for Badnarik [badnarik.org]

Re:what's it based on (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734314)

I voted for Badnarik

Congratulations on throwing your vote away. You know, rational self interest does require that you be rational.

outplayed by geographic concentrations (1)

joejor (578266) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734176)

This is a wonderful illustration of a {feature|flaw} in our electoral system.

If only we could just slice up those huge blue spikes and seed them into the vast red plains

*sigh*

The vast red plains? Barsoom. (1)

AtariAmarok (451306) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734264)

"If only we could just slice up those huge blue spikes and seed them into the vast red plains"

I've figured it out. The vast red plains reference brought it home: we are living in Barsoom. John Kerry did bear a striking resemblance to Tars Tarkas. I guess Jimmy Carter will do in a pinch as we don't have John Carter.

How to understand the election results. (1, Insightful)

Futurepower(R) (558542) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734249)


How to understand the presidential election results.

If you haven't read any books about U.S. politics, then you probably don't know much about the activities of the U.S. government.

You cannot rely for information on TV or newspapers, or any advertising-supported media. Advertising-supported media exists to make money, not to inform. Advertisers are understandably careful not to alienate anyone. It is not possible to develop an accurate opinion of government activities only by listening to the carefully crafted phrases from media employees who would lose their jobs if they seemed to indicate a preference for one candidate over another.

It's a fact that Bush supporters often have a poor understanding of his actions rather than what he wants people to believe. One example of support for this is the following article: Bush Supporters Misread Many of His Foreign Policy Positions [pipa.org] .

The U.S. government is corrupted by extreme conflict of interest. Please don't moderate this down just because you disagree. I can support my position with links to 3 movies and 35 books: Unprecedented Corruption: A guide to conflict of interest in the U.S. government. [futurepower.org]

For a quicker overview, see this article: 100 Facts and 1 Opinion -- The Non-Arguable Case Against the Bush Administration. [thenation.com]

The county-by-county results [esri.com] showing not only who won, but the number, are extremely interesting. So is the USA Today result map [usatoday.com] . They show what might be expected. Those who live in rural counties vote for Bush. In the past century, the more intelligent, educated, and ambitious people have migrated away from the farms to places with more opportunities. The less educated have stayed behind. Those who live in rural counties are less likely to read, and therefore are not well-informed.

Those who don't read are fooled by Karl Rove's lies. Here are books about Karl Rove's methods:

Boy Genius: Karl Rove, The brains behind the remarkable political triumph of George W. Bush by Lou Dubose, Jan Reid, and Carl M. Cannon, 2003, PublicAffairs. Reviews: Powell's [powells.com] Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]

Part of the secret of Karl Rove's success is that U.S. voters don't want to believe there is widespread corruption in their government. Lies that are extreme and unrelenting enough are accepted.

President George W. Bush has a habit of giving disrespectful nicknames to those with whom he works. "Boy Genius" is one of Mr. Bush's nicknames for Karl Rove. Mr. Bush also calls Karl Rove, "Turd Blossom". The term refers to a flower that grows in the feces of a cow.

Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove made George W. Bush presidential by James Moore and Wayne Slater, 2003, John Wiley & Sons, New York, New York, USA. Reviews: Powell's [powells.com] Barnes & Noble [barnesandnoble.com] Amazon [amazon.com]

One of the Amazon reviews quotes the book: "Karl Rove matters to all Americans, many who have never even heard his name. While the president chafes at the description of Rove as 'Bush's Brain,' he can hardly deny that every policy and political decision either goes through, or comes from, the consultant," write the authors, leading them to pose the question, "Who really runs this country?"

George W. Bush is a man with very little analytical ability who merely follows the script written for him.

The Democratic Party is very weak. The election results can also be explained by the weakness of the Democratic Party. Bush could have been easily defeated by pointing out that he is not a Christian, because a true Christians is not a habitual liar or unnecessarily adversarial. Without support from the non-reading people who call themselves evangelical Christians, George W. Bush could not have even come close to winning the election.

What's shown here is only a small sample. The U.S. government is far more corrupt than the articles and books and movies to which I've linked above are able to fully explain. Frankly, I decided only 35 books was enough. There is so much it would be possible for one writer to spend a lifetime documenting the corruption, and I decided to stop.

Mod down -1, offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734299)

This comment has nothing to do with electoral college results. It's the worse segue into a cut-and-paste troll.

Check this guy's history, he posts the same crap every single time.

Whether you agree with his bullshit is irrelevant, it's offtopic and a troll.

Re:Mod down -1, offtopic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 9 years ago | (#10734457)

Did you read any of the books? No? Then his point is made.

Meh (1)

Guppy06 (410832) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734515)

Everybody seems to be doing by-county maps. What I'd rather see at this point is a per-Congressional district display. You know, something that would divide the country in to areas of (roughly) equal population?

I also see Hawaii didn't make it onto the map, and from what little of Alaska I can see I suspect they didn't bother with borough lines there.

Crime (4, Funny)

workindev (607574) | more than 9 years ago | (#10734519)

The only correlation I see is that the cities with the highest crime rates vote overwhelmingly democratic.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...