Daily Kos

View Story | 24 comments

  •  I may. (0+ / 0-)

    However, white as the "neutral" color doesn't work with three candidates without a serious loss of information in areas where the third candidate is competitive.

    Now, the advantage that white gives to a map is that it increases the contrast.  Personally, I find it to be a bit artificial.  You point out that shades of purple all look pretty similar (though you use overly bright shades of purple as demonstration), and that's true...but that's partially because 49-51 is pretty similar to 51-49 and I actually think that the fact that those look similar is a strength.

    I personally think that the comparison of monotone maps can also be quite effective, because shows percentage vote for a candidate rather than margin between candidates.

    I may do a comparison diary later.

    Respect. Empower. Include.

    by Meng Bomin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 02:12:57 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  It's actually better for three candidates (0+ / 0-)

      Edwards victories becomes shades of green from the palest pastel through emerald (or forest, if you want to go darker at some point.)  Clearer than what you have now.  You can even mix the results of the two top candidates out of three to create more hues, with intensity as the different over the third, but I think you'd find it easier just to make a map of the leaders and a new map for other purposes.

      I look forward, quite seriously, to seeing your experiment!  (Include a poll!)

      John McCain's Court will overturn Roe; don't kid yourself.

      by Seneca Doane on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 03:40:34 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  The problem is that (1+ / 0-)

        Recommended by:
        Seneca Doane

        Clinton and Obama minority votes disappear.  A Edwards-Obama-Clinton dominant county is a shade of teal while a Edwards-Clinton-Obama is more yellowish.  Both of those would be green using the white neutral map.

        I did make a pair of white maps after you suggested it (I haven't posted it yet), one where I eliminated the Edwards vote completely and the other with the Edwards vote.  Iowa (the only state where Edwards was truly competitive) is significantly whiter when the Edwards vote is figured in than when just Obama and Clinton are figured in.  The problem comes from the fact that a margin map (which is what the white maps are) only shows the margin between the first place and second place candidate, not figuring in the third place candidate.

        Respect. Empower. Include.

        by Meng Bomin on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 04:03:38 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I went to your Flickr page (0+ / 0-)

          and looked at the maps in more detail, and honestly I still could not make out what was happening in parts of Iowa and the Florida Panhandle, even at highest resolution.  I know that you have the third-candidate info in there, but I honestly can't perceive it.

          I'd be very interested in seeing those new maps, by the way.  I'm not sure how you did those two other maps.  It sounds like you did one where the map just showed the Obama-Clinton margin, which was not what I was suggesting.  I'm not clear on why the other, which included the Edwards vote, should have been more white.  I would think it would be more green.  The best approach there would probably be to just give the margin of Edwards versus the second-place candidate.  I think I know how to do this and retain all of the information you want to keep.

          First, you would determine the appropriate color balance between the second and third place candidates -- much as you have with your purple maps, except that this could apply whichever two candidates were trailing.  The will give you information in the map about the margin between the second and third place candidates.

          Second, you color in the map showing the margin between the top candidate and the second place candidate.  However, rather than fill that in with intensities of pure red and blue, as I've suggested, you would color it in with the inverse of the color you determined in step one.  So, where Edwards won, the color balance between Obama and Clinton could result in a pure red (Obama gets no votes in third place) to a pure purple (they tie) to a pure blue (Clinton gets no votes in third place.)  These would generate, respectively, a coloring for Edwards of pure cyan, pure green, and pure yellow.  The margin of Edwards over whoever finished second would determine the intensity of that color.  (And this could be the same for Clinton and Obama.)

          The only problem I see with this formula is what happens when the two leading candidates tie.  In other words, distributons of 50-50-0 and 40-40-20 and 33-33-33 all turn out white.  The solution may be something like keying intensity in a three party map to the difference between the leader's percentage and the mean between the second- and third-pace candidates, rather than just the second-place candidate.  I still need to think that one through.

          John McCain's Court will overturn Roe; don't kid yourself.

          by Seneca Doane on Wed Apr 23, 2008 at 11:27:00 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "fill that in?" (0+ / 0-)

            Interesting discussion - I do graphic design, and this sort of thing fascinates me.  I was assuming the maps were generated using a database and plugging the numbers into a program that then displays them on the map.

            If this is all hand-done, this is about 10 times more impressive than I first thought.  And I'm already impressed. Great visual reference tool, one way or the other!

            (-4.88, -3.74) Treat everyone as they deserve - and who doesn't deserve a whipping?! -Hamlet 2:2

            by pakaal on Sat Apr 26, 2008 at 12:40:42 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

View Story | 24 comments