Why is the saturation of color (representing the amount of votes) kept constant over geographic areas of dramatically varying sizes?
3-Dimensional representation of volume does not “fix” the “land doesn’t vote” area issue when the presentation is on 2D screens. A large portion of high density “pixels” remain hidden. The result is, no matter how you present it, an overwhelming and disproportionate amount of screen real estate - how most users will consume your content, is dominated inaccurately by one color vs. the other.
Further, most people don’t understand volume and mass anyway. The fact you think this visualization accurately represents the distribution of voting to most "normal" (i.e. non statistician) users is demonstration of that - and you have a degree in statistics.
1. Find a method to source or derive the land area of every precinct
2. Divide the precinct results by the landmass of the precinct to compute an accurate color depth.
The presentation IS the data to those looking at it.
Why is the saturation of color (representing the amount of votes) kept constant over geographic areas of dramatically varying sizes?
3-Dimensional representation of volume does not “fix” the “land doesn’t vote” area issue when the presentation is on 2D screens. A large portion of high density “pixels” remain hidden. The result is, no matter how you present it, an overwhelming and disproportionate amount of screen real estate - how most users will consume your content, is dominated inaccurately by one color vs. the other.
Further, most people don’t understand volume and mass anyway. The fact you think this visualization accurately represents the distribution of voting to most "normal" (i.e. non statistician) users is demonstration of that - and you have a degree in statistics.
1. Find a method to source or derive the land area of every precinct
2. Divide the precinct results by the landmass of the precinct to compute an accurate color depth.
The presentation IS the data to those looking at it.