2008 Nationwide Precinct Map Project - (Mostly) Complete! (user search)
       |           

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
April 27, 2024, 11:40:43 PM
News: Election Simulator 2.0 Released. Senate/Gubernatorial maps, proportional electoral votes, and more - Read more

  Talk Elections
  General Politics
  Political Geography & Demographics (Moderators: muon2, 100% pro-life no matter what)
  2008 Nationwide Precinct Map Project - (Mostly) Complete! (search mode)
Pages: [1]
Author Topic: 2008 Nationwide Precinct Map Project - (Mostly) Complete!  (Read 25901 times)
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« on: January 18, 2015, 03:05:39 PM »

I think this is a fantastic idea, but I see a few potential problems with this:

1. The finished image is likely to be so large as to be incompatible with most devices. Granted, I work on a PC made in 2007 and am not aware of the performance of newer machines with respect to huge images, but I can't imagine that it would be possible to work with an image in MS Paint much larger than 10,000 pixels². It would be impossible for me even to create a basemap at this zoom level of Texas or California.

2. Even with the zoom level selected, precincts in the major cities will be almost indistinguishable from one another and impossible to color. I think it might be a good idea to use insets.

3. A minor consideration: Within the state of Maryland, some precinct boundaries show detail of the coastline (Worcester) and some don't (Anne Arundel). I hate that. When I made my 2012 precinct map of Maryland, I drew in the coastline by hand where necessary, but it added hours of boring work to the project.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« Reply #1 on: January 19, 2015, 11:24:12 AM »

New York City at zoom level 10:

Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« Reply #2 on: January 19, 2015, 11:32:47 AM »
« Edited: January 19, 2015, 11:37:00 AM by homelycooking »

My approach to dealing with this problem is usually to zoom way out, so that working with the whole image is feasible. Then you zoom in for insets, lots of 'em. My thinking is generally that seeing a population center in detail is more important than seeing it directly within the context of the surrounding geography.

The other option is to keep a city like New York at the same scale as the rest of the state. You'll still be able to broadly see that the city is heavily Democratic, but picking out an individual precinct or neighborhood would be impossible.

Here's an extreme example of the insets approach:



Many of those towns would simply appear black (from the precinct boundaries) if there were no insets - the shades of blue wouldn't even be visible. Even at this zoom level, I still had to break Alberta into three parts in order to be at all able to work with the images!
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« Reply #3 on: January 19, 2015, 12:05:34 PM »

Philadelphia, Chicago, Northern New Jersey, South Florida and San Francisco come to mind.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2015, 07:44:30 AM »

I think the density of voting district boundaries in the Central Valley is giving the false impression at that zoom level that it's very dark blue.
Logged
homelycooking
Junior Chimp
*****
Posts: 6,302
Belize


« Reply #5 on: January 27, 2015, 08:42:11 AM »

A terrific idea well executed. It's such a shame that this sort of information is so difficult and expensive to acquire. Short of a well-financed Herculean effort, it will take an effort on the part of many more states to make their election data accessible before a future election is similarly map-able. cinyc, Adam, congratulations and well done.
Logged
Pages: [1]  
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

Page created in 0.022 seconds with 12 queries.