This animation shows the number of electoral votes each state had during each of the 59 presidential elections in US history between 1788 and 2020. It’s interesting to see the number of US states and their relative population sizes (in terms of electoral votes) over many different presidential elections. The population is counted every 10 years in the census so if a presidential election occurs between a census, it likely will not see any difference in numbers of electoral votes, unless something else happens (such as addition of a new state to the country).
You can use the slider to control the election year to focus on a specific election and toggle the animation by hitting the Start/Stop button. Hovering over each state will tell you the number of electoral votes and the percentage of the total number of electoral votes in that election.
In the elections during and immediately after the US Civil War, we also see some states whose electoral votes for president are not counted (shown in purple). Wyoming, the state with the lowest population in the US, has the highest number of electoral votes per person in the state, while the three most populous states, California, Florida and Texas have the least number of electoral votes per person. Wyoming has four times the number of electors per capita than these 3 states have (i.e. accounting for their population sizes). That will be the subject of another map dataviz.
Sources and Tools:
This interactive map shows the election results by county and you can display the size of counties based on their land area or population size.
A little while ago, I made a map (cartogram) that showed the state by state electoral results from the 2016 Presidential Election by scaling the size of the states based on their electoral votes. The idea for that map was that by portraying a state as Red or Blue, your eye naturally attempts to determine which color has a greater share of the total. On a normal election map of the 2016 Election, Red states dominate, especially because a number of larger, less populated states happen to vote Republican. That cartogram changed the size of the states so that large states with low population, and thus low electoral votes tended to shrink in size, while smaller states with moderate to larger populations tended to grow in size. Thus, when your eyes attempt to discern which color prevails, the comparison is more accurate and attempts to replicate the relative ratio of electoral votes for each side.
This map looks at the election results, county by county. An interesting thing to note is that this view is even more heavily dominated by the color red, for the same reasons. Less densely populated counties tend to vote republican, while higher density, typically smaller counties tend to vote for democrats. As a result, the blue counties tend to be the smaller ones so blue is visually less represented than it should be based on vote totals. More than 75% of the land area is red, when looking at the map based on land areas, while shifting to the population view only about 46% of the map is red. Neither of these percentages is exactly correct because each county is colored fully red or blue and don’t take into account that some counties are won by a large percentage and some are essentially tied. However, the population number is certainly closer to reality as Trump won about 48.8% of the votes that went to either Trump or Clinton.
This tool should be relatively straightforward to use. Just click around and play with it.
The map has a few different options for display:
This was my second attempt at using d3 to generate visualizations. I typically use leaflet to do web-based mapping but I wanted the power of d3 which has functions for the circles to prevent overlapping. This map was inspired by Karim Douieb’s cool visualization of 2016 election results. I modified it in a number of different ways to try to make it more interactive and useful.
This visualization does not actually simulate the collisions between the circles on your browser. It is a bit computationally taxing and causes my computer fan to turn on after awhile. So instead I ran the simulation on my computer and recorded the coordinates for where each circle ended up for each category. Then your browser is simply using d3 transitions to shift positions and sizes of the circles between each of the maps, which is simpler, though with 3142 counties, it can still tax the computer occasionally.
Data and Tools
This map shows the electoral outcome of the 2016 US Presidential Election and is color coded red if the state was won by Donald Trump (R) and blue if the state was won by Hilary Clinton. When looking at the map, red states tend to be larger in area than blue states, but also generally have lower populations. This gives a misleading impression that the electoral share is “redder” than it actually is. For 2016, we can see that Trump won 306 electoral votes or (57% of the total electoral votes), but the map is shaded such that 73% of the area of the US is colored red. Similarly, Clinton won 232 electoral votes, but the map is shaded such that only 27% of the map is colored blue.
The map shrinks the states with low electoral votes relative to its area and increases the size of states with large numbers of electoral votes relative to its area. On average blue states grow as they are under-represented visually, while red states tend to shrink quite a bit because they are over-represented visually. Alaska is the state that shrinks the most and DC and New Jersey are the areas that grow the most in the new map.
I think this gives a more accurate picture of how the states voted because it also gives a sense of the relative weight of those states votes. Even with the change in sizes, the map is still mostly red, but gives a better sense of how close the electoral vote totals are.
Data and Tools: