[Moparmike]

I saw this somewhere, and I can't find it again. It showed all the counties red/blue like the normal ones, but had counties with "height" per the population of the county. It really showed the large urban centers for what they are.

[Ewok]

http://www.esri.com/industries/elections/graphics/results_2004_lg.jpg

[Moparmike]

Thanks. Its interesting to note that Chicago's liberal population puts it completely off the charts... :scrutiny:

[Preacherman]

Its interesting to note that Chicago's liberal population puts it completely off the charts...
...or perhaps it's because Mayor Daley and the legendary Democratic Party Chicago machine were up to their old tricks again??? :scrutiny:

[roscoe]

This map is only 2-D, but it has more resolution on counties and how they voted.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=18340

[hso]

The "cartograms" should present information weighted for population so that sparsly populated plots of ground don't appear to have the same weight as heavily populated areas. While the images are odd they do show that while few states were "blue" and the majority were "red" the population of voters was nearly evenly split between Bush and Kerry (51/48). http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/

[tyme]

hso, that depends entirely on what you want to show and what your premise is.

The constitutional and legislative procedures in place for the 2004 general election determined that, absent significant Republican-biased voting fraud, George W. Bush won the presidential election. An infinite number of Democrats with an infinite number of digital crayons and an infinite number of oddly-shaped outlines of the United States won't change that.