Post random maps here

[Smid]

Roughly what the map would look like from 2004, if all states used the Maine/Nebraska method of apportioning ECVs. The very dark blue through the small seats is obviously overstated as they only have the one Congressional District, and therefore would remain "Winner-takes-all." Michigan and Pennsylvania would flip and Minnesota would be 50-50.

That's based on me looking up how Bush and Kerry went by Congressional District online - so if there are any mistakes, they're entirely mine.

[Smid]

Huckabee (Ind) runs in the GE against McCain and Obama.

[Smid]

Where States derive the majority of their income, with the yellow states deriving a greater proportion of their state income than the average for the nation from Primary Industries - Mining, Lumber, Agriculture.

I don't think I explained it well... if the Primary Industries contributed to 25% of US GDP, the states in yellow had State GDPs in which Primary Industries were >25% and green states had primary industries worth <25% of State GDP. (Note, I haven't actually researched those figures, I'm just using them by way of example).

So fisheries in Maine, farming throughout the west, forestry in Oregan, oil in Texas and AK, mining in WV.

The darker the green, the less state income is derived from primary industries, and the darker the yellow, the more state income is?

That said, agriculture is pretty big in California and Penn, so perhaps I'm mistaken...

[Smid]

Didn't think it would be right, but thought I'd give it a shot anyway.

I'd considered population growth, but I think some of the border states are growing fastest - but in your map California and Arizona are opposite, so I'm guessing that's not it. I guess it's possible that it's population growth based on citizens or something like that.

I also looked for some figures based on median age and breakdown of population by age bracket, in case it was states where the median age was above/below the US median, but I couldn't find where those figures were expressed as a single table and didn't want to go through a multitude of tables looking it up state by state. I guess it could also be states with a greater or lower proportion of seniors compared to the average number of seniors (although I suspect Florida and DC wouldn't be similar in that instance). For that matter, it could also be the reverse - proportion of children under the age of 15, or even the proportion of population within the working age (so excluding children and seniors) but again, I'd have suspected a difference between Florida and DC.

I also considered that perhaps it was ethnicity as a proportion of population - but there shouldn't be much difference between Louisiana and Mississippi, so I ruled that one out.

Anything there heading down the right track or am I way off base?

[Smid]

As we all know, because of the breakup of CDs between states, some states end up being over-represented in Congress because their population of the state is less than the average CD and some are under-represented.

I thought it might have been states over/under-represented in Congress based on population, but the figures I found of state population vs number of CDs in the state suggest that it's not that...

...still thinking...

[Smid]

Alright - I'm almost certain I've got it... I put together a spreadsheet of population according to July 2007 and land area of each state and then worked out the population density of each state. I then compared the population density of each state to the average and except in the case of Texas (?) this map seems to show states with over/under the average population density with yellow states having a population density of less than 31.66 people per square kilometre (82 per square mile) and green states having a population density of more than 31.66 people per square kilometre (82 per square mile).

Texas is the only glitch for me - 32.6 people per square kilometre and 84 people per square mile.

[Smid]

We used slightly different sources - mine was the wikipedia list of population by state and the wikipedia list of land area by state. The population list is obviously the different one, I think it was a 2006 estimate, rather than the 2000 census actual figures.

[Smid]

What's this depict?

[Smid]

green=tolerant
red=homophobic

Possibly it does, but that's not what I was charting.

[Smid]

It's demographic data - but not population. For example, it could be proportion of the population with a college degree (it's not, but it's that sort of a thing - demographic, rather than political, but not relating to population growth, etc).

[Smid]

A further hint...

It's a statistic that your Commerce Department is more likely to compile...

[Smid]

It is indeed!

Something that I found particularly interesting is how the rankings for State Median Household Income differ from State Median Personal Income. DC rises quite considerably on the second rating, compared with being just under the average in the first.

[Smid]

Is it political?

[Smid]

I'd been thinking it was how many House Committee Chairs came from each state, but I think that's incorrect?

For a hint: Is it Congressional?

[Smid]

I've got a feeling it's the one I was going to do next. I'll do some research first, though, because if it's not, I'll keep it up my sleave to use myself shortly...

[Smid]

Looks like it isn't what I was planning on popping up, so I won't guess it...

A hint? Is it political?

[Smid]

Is it State politics, rather than Federal?

[Smid]

I'll keep thinking about it. I love this thread! I love that it's a challenge and makes me think...

[Smid]

Bill, I'm giving yours some thought... hint, though... is it along the lines of a 2008 map based on the vote achieved by each party in each state in the 2006 Congressional mid-terms? Something along those lines? How hot/cold am I?

Ben, I think I'm off base here, but is it party registrations to the party? I'm guessing that's not it because I'd suspect the Dems to do better in the south and that it wouldn't be quite so polarised as your figures would dictate, but I thought I'd put it out there to show I'm still interested in it... Perhaps another hint? Is it Congressional?

[Smid]

Blue = Baptist?
Green = Mormon
Red = Catholic?

Not sure orange, yellow and grey, but since grey typically is undecided or too close to call, I'm going to guess atheist?

[Smid]

Orange is Serbian Orthodox. I just googled him.

[Smid]

That was a really great map! Very original! And kudos to Bill Diamond for picking that it was related to religion!

Ben: does your map reflect congressional swings in 2006? I know that Indiana swung to the Dems. In Arkansas, the Dems hold more districts, so it's obviously not a simple who holds the most map.

[Smid]

I was going to ask if it was party affiliation of the State A-G, but Alaska is Republican and Arizona and Arkansas were both Democrats, according to this list:

http://www.naag.org/ag/full_ag_table.php

So I'm guessing that's not it. By the way, could you re-post it, it's a few pages back so that would make it easier to find next time?

[Smid]

West Virginia is nonexistant due to a deficiency in the evcalc.

Is it the combined margin for both Senators? For example, if one Senator was a Republican elected by 3% and the other a Democrat by 5%, it would show up as a 2% Democrat state?

[Smid]

Similar map:

Republican vote, 1984? Minnesota is pretty low and DC is (of course) very low, so that's what I'd be guessing.

Democrat vote? Since Joe guessed 1996, I'm going with that.