See if you live in a political bubble

Gus Wezerek, Ryan D. Enos, and Jacob Brown for NYT Opinion use neighborhood-level data to show how those around you voted in the 2020 election. They ask: do you live in a political bubble? Enter an address to see.

This is riffing off of NYT’s similarly-themed map from 2018, which asked the same question but answered more geographically. This newer version, as is the current way of doing things these days, is more bubbly and mobile-focused with the scroll format.

Tags: , , ,

Voting and vaccination rate

Danielle Ivory, Lauren Leatherby and Robert Gebeloff for The New York looked at voting from the 2020 election and vaccination rates at the state and county levels. The strength of correlation is surprising. The existence of the correlation is not.

Tags: , , ,

Guess who the neighborhood voted for

NYT’s The Upshot has a quiz that puts you in a neighborhood via Google Maps images. Who did the neighborhood vote for in the 2020 presidential election? The aggregate of reader results is the most interesting part, which shows a strong correlation between correct guesses and the magnitude of the win by a candidate.

I much prefer this quiz over the refrigerator one The Upshot put up last year.

Tags: , , ,

Mapping all of the voters

In what seems to have become a trend of making more and more detailed election maps, NYT’s The Upshot mapped results down to the addresses of 180 million voters:

The maps above — and throughout this article — show their estimates of partisanship down to the individual voter, colored by the researchers’ best guess based on public data like demographic information, voter registration and whether voters participated in party primaries.

We can’t know how any individual actually voted. But these maps show how Democrats and Republicans can live in very different places, even within the same city, in ways that go beyond the urban-suburban-rural patterns visible in aggregated election results.

The estimates are based on research by Jacob Brown and Ryan Enos, recently published in Nature. You can also look at their data via the Harvard Dataverse.

Tags: , ,

Precinct-level map of 2020 election results

NYT’s The Upshot published their precinct-level map of 2020 election results. Zoom in to your geographic area and bask in or scratch your head over the detailed variation.

This seems be a recurring view now, with their “extremely detailed map” making an appearance after the 2016 and 2018 election. They also had their “most detailed maps” in 2014.

However, this year, The Upshot made their precinct-level data available on GitHub, so you can look closer if you like.

Tags: , ,

Map of the voting in Georgia, the runoff vs. the general election

For NYT’s The Upshot, Nate Cohn explains how Warnock and Ossoff won Georgia. The accompanying map by Charlie Smart provides a clear picture of swooping arrows that show the shifts from the general election to the runoff.

Tags: , , , ,

Voting gains for 2020, compared to 2016 election

For The New York Times, Ford Fessenden, Lazaro Gamio and Rich Harris go with a Dorling cartogram to look at the votes gained per county in the 2020 election, compared against the 2016 election.

As you’d expect, voting overall was up just about everywhere this year. Some counties shifted left. Some shifted right. The key points of interest come about when the the map starts zooming into specific regions.

See also: the election wind map.

Tags: ,

Recap of all the election maps and charts

Alan McConchie from Stamen recaps the wide array of maps and charts that came out before, during, and after election night:

This year we saw continued refinement of traditional election maps styles, and an exciting (and nerve-wracking) new frontier developed with the visualization of post-election ballot counting. Dataviz practitioners are struggling with challenges of how to show uncertainty and how much uncertainty can be shown while still making our visualizations clean and easy to understand. Election cartographers are dealing with their own dilemma of how much to show the polarization and inequality that currently exists in our electoral system (with the risk of reinforcing it) versus making counterfactual maps of systems that could or should be.

[via Co.Design]

Tags: ,

Votes that won the presidency

Voter turnout this election was higher than it’s been in a long time, but the winner margins were still small. Alyssa Fowers, Atthar Mirza and Armand Emamdjomeh for The Washington Post showed the margins with dots. Each circle represents 3,000 votes, and the blue and red circles represent by how much the candidate won by in a given state.

The dots showing absolute counts are useful to see the scale of each win, which percentages don’t capture.

Tags: ,

Debunking claims of election rigging

There’s a video (one of too many I am sure) going around that “shows” election rigging. Statistician Kristian Lum shows, with good ol’ basic math and R plots, why the “evidence” is what happens during a normal election.

Tags: , ,