An extremely detailed map of the 2016 election
I live in a precinct that went 57 - 34 for Clinton. I work in a precinct that went 81 - 10 for Clinton.
This is about what I expected but it’s pretty neat to see. Thought I’d share.
I might just spend all day on this.
OK, so I am in a roughly 65% Hillary area.
Yeah, saw this at work around 1pm. Didn’t really get a lot of work done the rest of my day.
ETA - live in a precinct that went 79% for Clinton, work in one that went 88% for Clinton.
83% Clinton 9.9% Trump. I assume the remainder were purity ponies throwing their vote away on a 3rd party.
It is no surprise that in Wyoming about the only blue precincts are in the college town (Laramie), the place where Hollywood types go to retire (Jackson), and the Wind River Reservation. I have no ready explanation for the small blue precinct in Cheyenne.
Man, there’s a lot of red on that map.
Yeah, the best version I saw of this (on a much smaller and less fun scale) used dots on a white map to represent voters.
I was surprised at the big blue chunks of Alaska, thought’d it be all red.
And to add, do my eyes fool me or is Election District 40, in Alaska, geographically larger than any non-Alaska state in all of the rest of America?
Indeed a fascinating map. It would be even more interesting if you:
a)compared it with 2012 precinct data and mapped the changes in the vote shares.
b)correlated vote shares with socio-economic data at the county level.
District 40 appears to have an area of 158,256 square miles (using the shapefile from here if anyone’s interested). That means it is smaller than Texas and California but larger than all the rest. It looks even larger on that map because of the Mercator projection which makes areas appear disproportionately larger the closer they are to the poles.
Obviously because so many of the red precincts are rural and have large areas–though usually not that many voters. If you have a huge precinct with only five people–3 people for one candidate, 2 for the other candidate, it still takes on the color of one, and shows a 20% point difference, even though there’s only one more person for that candidate in the precinct. If you just look at the overall color impression of an area, you’re not using the map correctly.
Fascinating! Thanks for sharing!
Possibly areas with a large native population although I don’t know how they vote in Alaska. Rural areas with high native population in the Southwest are one of the few places where you can see large swathes of blue.
My precinct went 76% Clinton, 17% Trump.
This map dispels the myth that says the rich voted for Trump and the poor voted for Clinton.
It appears that it’s the exact opposite — the rich voted for Clinton while the poor voted for Trump.
That map takes forever to load for me.
As an aside, does anyone have a text or spreadsheet file of county-level results across the country? I’ve a hypothesis I’d like to test, that the more Trump voters there are in a county, the more strongly that county went to Clinton.
Wow, I’m never moving to Kansas.
You won’t have to, Kansas is coming for you. To you. Sorry, slip of the keyboard…