Red and Blue Makes Purple, and We're All Mixed Up

Maps are tools. They are visual representations of data that our minds might otherwise be unable to interpret. A political map tells us where one country ends and another begins. Topographical maps tell us how high a mountain is and displays specific bits of information, such as land features and towns. Climate maps use bands of color to represent temperature and ecosystems; economic and resource maps use tiny symbols to show where coal is mined, timber is cut, and wheat is harvested; and road maps help us plan our trip to the beach.

What kind of map is this?

A bad one.

This map is designed to show us who is winning the presidential election. We've seen them before, and come Tuesday, November 8, we'll see it on the news hour after hour, changing colors slightly until all the polls are closed and the new president announced.

But it is a misleading map. One of the important lessons my students needed to learn is that sometimes they -- the ubiquitous they -- use maps or graphs to make a point. Sometimes maps and graphs are purposely or inadvertently skewed to get you to believe a certain thing.

What is the problem with the above map? It shows all the states, doesn't it? You can tell where Pennsylvania is. It doesn't show us resources or rivers, but that's not important in a presidential election, so what's the problem?

I would say it is unintentionally misleading; the news outlets using this kind of map are simply using a map their viewers are used to seeing. The problem is that Montana is much larger than Massachusetts, but Massachusetts has more electoral votes. The map is misleading because our minds see bigger states are blue and so blue must be winning.

But in order to understand the problem, you need to understand the electoral process.

The official U.S. Electoral College website says, "The electoral college is a process, not a place. The Founding Fathers established it in the Constitution as a compromise between election of the President by a vote in Congress and election of the President by a popular vote of qualified citizens."

We can go into what the founders meant by "qualified citizens," but that would get us off track. Today in America, every citizen over the age of 18 has the right (and I would say responsibility) to vote, with the exception of felons currently incarcerated or on parole (their rights are restored after parole is completed).

But hear this: YOU do not vote directly for the President. Your vote tells your state's electoral college delegates how you would like them to vote. And hear this: the electoral college delegates don't have to vote how you tell them to!

America is a democratic society, but our government is a Democratic Republic. In a true Democracy, each person equals one vote. If there is a vote on whether to provide money to fix this road, everyone would vote and each vote counts as one. If there is a vote on whether to make books illegal, everyone would vote and each vote counts as one. Do you see how unwieldy that would be? We'd spend all our time voting! On stupid stuff, no less.

Our Founding Fathers, in their wisdom, knew their history and understood that only very small governments can be truly Democratic. It just isn't viable in a country as large and populated as ours. But though they knew strict Democracy wouldn't work, they didn't want Congress to choose on their own who would lead the country, without some input from the people. We are a Democratic Republic. And so they compromised by creating the electoral college.

The Electoral College has 538 members, delegates chosen by each state. Each state can choose their delegates in whichever way the State Constitution mandates. Out of 538 members, the electoral college needs a majority of 270 votes in order to name a president. Each state gets a specified number of delegates: the number of delegates that state has in the House of Representatives (which is based on population) plus 2. Pennsylvania has 20 delegates, and that makes us one of the important electoral states. Only California, Texas, New York, and Florida have more, and Illinois also has 20. As stated before, electors are not required to vote as the state's voters dictate. However, the official U.S. Electoral College website says, "Today, it is rare for Electors to disregard the popular vote by casting their electoral vote for someone other than their party’s candidate. Electors generally hold a leadership position in their party or were chosen to recognize years of loyal service to the party. Throughout our history as a nation, more than 99 percent of Electors have voted as pledged."

If we, as voters, are not voting directly for the President, what exactly happens on Election Day? Again according to the official website, "The presidential election is held every four years on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November. You help choose your state’s electors when you vote for President because when you vote for your candidate you are actually voting for your candidate’s electors." (emphasis mine) Most states use a winner-takes-all system. That means if the majority of Pennsylvania voters choose, let's say, Freddy "Two Bricks" Mahoney*, then all 20 of PA's electors would cast their vote for Mahoney. In some states, though, they use a system where 2 electors would vote for Cassidy Evans* and the rest would vote for Mahoney. The electors meet in December to cast their vote. Remember, we said that 99% of the time electors vote as their told? It is theoretically possible that on Tuesday, November 8, the media calls Mahoney the winner and then in December the electors overwhelmingly vote for Evans. This has happened four times in American history: 1824, 1876, 1888, and, most recently, 2000, when Al Gore lost to George W. Bush.

This is why that map is misleading. Pennsylvania has more electors than all but 4 other states, but how much territory does it cover on the map, compared to Midwestern states?

There's an easy solution to the problem. Instead of using a map that is geographically accurate but useless on Election Day, use a map that visually represents each state's influence, like this:

It doesn't look like a map we're used to seeing, and you have to know your postal abbreviations. But when you find Massachusetts and Montana, you can clearly see that Montana has less influence, and the overall visual is skewed toward blue, and your eye can clearly see that.

I don't expect that the media outlets will change the way they do things, so I expect we'll see something like the top map on November 8th. But here's hoping for change! And if you do see the top map in November, remind yourself it's a bit skewed.

*names have been changed to protect the innocent