Discussion in 'Alternate History Maps and Graphics' started by Thande, Sep 10, 2011.
Wasn't Saxony a stronghold (the stronghold) of the SPD at those times?
It was indeed - das rote Sachsen was a fairly common political term.
Someone requested the margin of victory maps for the state level:
Overall, it is natural for the big two to lose votes on the second ballot - voters vote for the candidate closer to their views with a chance to win on the first ballot, vote for their true alliance on the second. However, at the state level, there are some clear trends. AfD voters rarely split their ticket, the most shocking example of this was in Thuringia where the AfD only got .2% more votes on the second ballot. even in Saxony, the AfD only picked up a little over 1% of the vote, it was more the CDU just lost theirs. Bavaria saw around 6% of the vote leave the CSU, whereas 2.7% left SPD and AfD gained 2%, which is why it sticks out on the seat map. In the northeast; Lower Saxony, Hamburg, Bremen, and a little bit of North-Rhine Westphalia saw the SPD lose a whole lot more of their vote then the CDU - in Bremen the CDU actually gained .2%!
Oh and I am not doing Die PARTEI or Freie Wähler - too few votes to justify for such a detailed map. If someone else wants to trudge through that data, be my guest!
Especially Leipzig. It saw the foundation of Lasalle's AAVD, was the stronghold of the Independents while they were a thing, and unless I'm reading the map wrongly was the site of Die Linke's best result in Saxony even into 2017.
I might do some maps for the minor parties, obviously a different scale is needed but I'm currently going through Die PARTEI and it's not too bad.
Estimates using my White vote maps:
Could you add the aggregate map too, just to have them all in one place?
There's probably something to be said about the most Democratic white income group is the richest, but it's a story we all know already and is only going to intensify from here.
Do you need it to be in the same file?
Here it is on its own:
As for the phenomenon of the affluent Whites breaking Democrat, that's a very recent phenomenon, though we saw the beginnings of that trend in the first elections after Obama was elected:
Spoiler: Spoiler'd to reduce clutter
A preview of things to come.
Here are the precinct results for the 2016 Election of the 6 north-eastern-most counties of Missouri (Adair, Knox, Lewis, Schuyler, Scotland, and Clark):
To answer the obvious questions,
Yes, the whole state is coming (I have the precincts traced out, I just need to match results). Yes, it will be at this scale, because otherwise it's hard to discern some of the precincts in the city.
For a while I have been considering trying to consolidate all election maps for major U.S. offices in a presidential year onto one map.
As I am currently laid up with a sprained ankle, I've given it a go. Small preview below.
Sorry to hear about your ankle, @Thande. I know what that feels like.
Also, that map is awesome.
But you do know we're going to start demanding more of them.
My thinking is that I will work backwards from this one. The only question being whether it is worth doing odd-numbered years or just even-numbered ones. The advantage to the former is that I could put all the special elections in between 2014 and 2016 onto the 2015 map, and otherwise you would never see odd-numbered elections in states like Mississippi. But it would leave a lot of the map grey.
Maybe a combination of both? If there are a lot of elections on an odd-numbered year, you could make one specially. Otherwise, just lump them together with the even-numbered year map.
I just remembered there were seven faithless electors last year, and that all but one of them were pledged to Clinton.
Update for Missouri:
EDIT: This resolution seems to work with Deviantart. Is this fine for everyone?
You can tell where all the cities are - they have miniscule seats.
Those are precincts (counting districts) not seats.
The really small ones are still indicative of where the cities are, though.
There's no set rule over how big a precinct can be. However, from my experience, the practical upper limit seems to be about 3,000 voters per district (precincts above this tend to get split the next cycle). Some precincts are quite small - normally because they match up to some village or something (it makes it easier to count and run certain elections if the precinct is co-terminus with municipal boundaries; my own precinct actually straddles two municipalities, so we have to have two types of ballots). While not a perfect measure, it does give a good idea where there's increased population density.
However, that doesn't stop unusual things from happening. There's one precinct in Missouri that only has 4 voters (where, interestingly enough, Clinton and Castle tied at 50% each). Missouri doesn't tend to have anything big, though I do know Nebraska has these stupidly large precincts in some areas that process half as many voters as your average Westminster constituency at a single site.
For a UK comparison here's a polling district map of e.g. Birmingham (compare to the corresponding former ward boundaries, which represents the smallest actual electoral subdivision in the city, each electing 3 councillors off an electorate of about 15-20 thousand). It is interesting to consider what we could produce if those numbers were made available rather than combined prior to the returning officer's announcement, although I'm always concerned about privacy.
Separate names with a comma.