Which electoral maps are the most aesthetically pleasing to your eye?

[Indy Prez]

Consider their merits on the basis of pure aesthetics foremostly, then by their political ramifications, e.g.



As a fiscal moderate and social liberal, I was most pleased by Barack H Obama's 2008 triumph, but I was particularly pleased by the s politically contiguou nature of the states (red flow along the Rust Belt, down the Left Coast, up through New England and a good splash on the Mid-Atlantic and Florida.



As for the election of 2000, however, I was most displeased with the particularly long-awaited outcome and furhtermore, by the regional inconsistencies: California appears to have a chunk bitten out of it while News Hampshire and Mexico jar the eyes with their seeming displacement.

Feel free to 'draw' your own beauties and monsters.

[Cathcon]

'04 because of the huge amount of contiguous land, from the Atlantic to an almost completely filled out Interior- and South-West, that went one color. Same goes for seeing a map of the Solid South from the Gilded Age. I for one think it's cool when something like, say, New Hampshire, sticks out from the rest of a region.

Republican victories where the Dems just get the Solid South are repetitive and boring to look at. Same goes for Democratic-Republican victories from 1804-1820. Those are ridiculous. Only one worth a damn (besides the utter magnitude of Monroe's 1820 victory) is 1812 because the Feds take NY but the DR's get VT. Jackson's maps are pretty cool 1824-1832, 1836 is just awful though.

[muon2]

One of my favorites is a pair of close elections. Compare the 2000 map to 1916, only 7 of the continental 48 states are the same party.

[jimrtex]

One of my favorites is a pair of close elections. Compare the 2000 map to 1916, only 7 of the continental 48 states are the same party.

So you have the 3 hard-core Republican states of SD, IN, and WV.

And the 4 hard-core Democrat states of WA, CA, NM and MD.

[muon2]

One of my favorites is a pair of close elections. Compare the 2000 map to 1916, only 7 of the continental 48 states are the same party.

So you have the 3 hard-core Republican states of SD, IN, and WV.

And the 4 hard-core Democrat states of WA, CA, NM and MD.

And in between in the close election of 1976, WV was solid D and CA, NM and WA were R. That leaves MD as the only hard-core D state and IN and SD remaining as hard-core R.

[Oldiesfreak1854]

My #1 pick would probably be 1976, but 1960 (and probably 1908) would be strong contenders as well.

[cope1989]

1960 looks like a complete hot mess. There are almost no regional patterns whatsoever. You have candidates winning by less than 5 points in states like Idaho and New York.

I tend to like election maps that show clear regional strength or weakness for the parties. In 1960 it looks like everybody in American just got up and decided who to vote for 5 minutes before they got to the polls.

1992 is my favorite because it stands in such stark contrast to the landslide maps of 80, 84 and 88. It shows a clear and dramatic shift.

[Smid]

The less populated North makes the map seem remarkably balanced in the main map, with the northern half of the province being orange and the southern half being green. Of course, the actual results were remarkably unbalanced.



Probably more at thumbnail size, but the dark red in much of what federally is West Nova and southern Kings-Hants, coupled with the dark blue in Yarmouth and Argyle, Colchester and Victoria seem to nicely balance the remaining orange. They colours seem to just match.

[homelycooking]

Any questions?

[MilesC56]

Homely's France maps are the best I've seen.

[Smid]

Homely's France maps are the best I've seen.

Agreed.

[Senator X]

Any questions?

You win!

[Oldiesfreak1854]

I don't like any of the recent US maps at all.