![]() ![]() They have evolved rapidly over the past three decades, and continue to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated ways. ![]() New political media are forms of communication that facilitate the production, dissemination, and exchange of political content on platforms and within networks that accommodate interaction and collaboration. This chapter will briefly address the evolution of new media, before examining in greater detail their role in and consequences for political life. New media have radically altered the way that government institutions operate, the way that political leaders communicate, the manner in which elections are contested, and citizen engagement. It is just that the visualization choices made have resulted in a map which could easily mislead users about the level of support for the winning candidate in the 2016 presidential election.The new media environment is dynamic and continues to develop in novel, sometimes unanticipated, ways that have serious consequences for democratic governance and politics. The upshot of all this criticism is not that the NYT election map is wrong. The article is illustrated with a number of different maps of the 2016 presidential election visualizing the data in a number of different ways. The Wired article looks closely at how the different cartographic and data visualization choices you make can greatly influence the story your maps tell. Kenneth Filed's considered thoughts on election maps also feature prominently in the Wired's Is the US Leaning Red or Blue? It All Depends on Your Map. ![]() If you want a detailed explanation of the problems with the NYT election map then you should check out Kenneth Field's Cartographic Hyperbole post of the map. The result is a much more accurate map of the number of votes cast for each candidate in California. However the LA Times map shades the precincts by the number of people who live there rather than by the percentage of votes cast for the winning candidate.Therefore in the LA Times precinct election map more visual weight is given to precincts with the most voters rather than to the most partisan precincts. For example Jon Schleuss of the LA Times posted this direct comparison of the NYT election map with the LA Times Election map -īoth are maps of the same precinct level data. The reason why many people are arguing that the NYT map is misleading is because it places too much visual weight on the large rural precincts won by Donald Trump and distorts the overall result of the election. It is this choice to shade precincts by the percentage of votes cast for a candidate that has upset a lot of people. The darker a shade of blue then the higher the percentage of votes cast for Hillary Clinton. The darker a precinct is colored red on the map then the higher the percentage of votes cast for Donald Trump. It does this by shading each precinct by the percentage of votes cast for the winning candidate. It also allows you to see at a glance which precincts overwhelmingly voted for either candidate. The map is a great tool for exploring how many votes were cast for each presidential candidate at precinct level. The NYT's Extremely Detailed Map of the 2016 Election allows you to explore the 2016 presidential election at the voting precinct level. Yesterday the New York Times published an interactive map of the 2016 presidential election which succeeded in annoying a lot of cartographers. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |