Jerry Bowers said:Yes. Maps and graphs have their uses, but I generally prefer the numbers.
A "map" is a graphic representation of an area and its features. What you show above is not a map, but rather a goofy graphic pretending to show political data in a way that the presenter would like it to be.
Actually it’s a map. It’s a graphical representation of the US by population rather than by square mileage. It’s a map; it’s just mapping something different than land.
I’m not sure why that map seems to upset people. It’s just another way of visualizing the fact that the population of the US is not evenly distributed. remember how there are different ways of representing the globe on a map, and some of them resort to distorting the size of, say, Greenland, in order to represent the curve of the earth? It’s hard to map a curve on a flat surface.
Both maps are misleading. The flat map of of the land makes it look as if most of the people in the country voted for McCain. It’s inaccurate in that sense but it’s accurate in terms of land mass. The population map accurately shows that most of the people in the country voted for Obama, but it makes a hash of the square footage. They are just two ways of looking at the data
The technical term for it is cartogram - a presentation of statistical data in geographical distribution on a map
I have no idea why anyone would be upset by it.
-Brian