![\"Clintonia\"](\"https:\/\/blog.richmond.edu\/livesofmaps\/files\/2017\/03\/Clintonia.png\")
<\/a>\nWith solely the numbers in mind, one might think that the visual of the election map would show a relatively even split; a truly \u201cdivided\u201d nation would be both numerically divided and geographically divided, right? According to the map of \u201cClinton\u2019s America\u201d this was not the case. Despite the numbers, Hillary only won 15% or 3,000,000 square miles of the United States\u2019 land mass, leaving Trump with a perplexing remainder of 85% at 350,000,000 square miles. To reflect these numbers, the seemingly small islands of Hillary would harbor 54% of the nation\u2019s population at 174 million Americans (Jacobs, 2017). With some basic calculations, that comes out to 58 people per square mile whereas Trump\u2019s land would host 1 person for every 2 square miles. So what can we determine from numbers alone? Clinton\u2019s voters have had to come from exceedingly densely populated areas, or particularly cities. When looking at the \u201cClinton\u2019s America\u201d map, the identified cities\u2014 Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Chicago, New York, Boston, Washington, Atlanta, etc.\u2014 prove this conjecture to be accurate. While the state is often represented by the city, the city is certainly not represented by the state. Look at New York, for example. When people think of think of the words \u201cNew York,\u201d they immediately think of a skyscraper-lined landscape with mass herds of occupants roaming the streets. Much like other U.S. cities, The Big Apple represents the majority of the state\u2019s population, economic activity, and the identification of the state as a whole. Yet, New York City only covers 0.006% of New York state\u2019s total square mileage. These highly populated urban environments, such as New York City, are essentially isolated from the rest of the state, forming\u2014 in correlation to the map\u2014islands. The \u201cisland\u201d forms an individual entity and harbors a different group of people in comparison to the rest of the state. Cities are known for minorities and cultural diversity. Somewhere in American history, minority groups became linked to liberalism, setting the foundation of Clinton’s America.<\/p>\n
\nLet\u2019s now take a step back past the numbers, past the uneven population spread, past any knowledge you have of the United States\u2014 and focus only on the geography of the \u201cClinton\u2019s America\u201d map. The map gives off the perception that Trump not only won the election, but he dominated in the popular vote count as well as the electoral college. Clinton\u2019s America conveys a distinctly inaccurate representation of the 2016\u2019s election results, however it remains fairly accurate in terms of geopolitical spread. The map focusses on geographic accuracy, and does represent a proportional visual of landmass-to-population density. Of course to do this, city-based regions would need to be deliberately skewed. To say the least, it shows how ineffective the portrayal of land area is in determining overall political views in the United States. If an outsider with no knowledge of American politics were to see this map, he undoubtedly would argue that the United States is unquestionably conservative. As we know from the previously stated data, the popular vote was not in Trump\u2019s favor and the results were remarkably close, deeming this map an inadequate way to represent American political stances.<\/p>\n
\nSo what can we learn from such an unconventional map? The first take away is that the cross between geography and politics can be extremely misleading if misunderstood. One must realize that the majority of the United State\u2019s population lies within the exodermis of the physical contiguous landmass and the archipelago of liberalism contributes more to the nation\u2019s identity than one might perceive. \u201cClinton\u2019s America\u201d also evokes the question as to whether our current electoral college system is fair in fully representing American democracy. Does the U.S. need to completely repeal the electoral college and rely on popular vote for further elections? Or have the founding principles of the nation become obsolete and simply need to be reformed to allocate growing population distribution? The conception of one map could be all the nations need to recognize and understand whether or not a more equitable system of democracy is necessary to fully express the voice of the people.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
References:<\/p>\n
Cook Political Report Staff. \u201c56 Interesting Facts about the 2016 Election\u201d National Politics.
\nDecember 16, 2016. Accessed March 04, 2017. http:\/\/cookpolitical.com\/story\/10201<\/p>\n
Frank Jacobs, \u201cTrumpistan vs. Clintonesia.\u201d Big Think Strange Maps, January 22, 2017.
\nhttp:\/\/bigthink.com\/strange-maps\/trumpistan-vs-clintonesia.<\/p>\n
Krieg, Gregory. “It’s official: Clinton swamps Trump in popular vote.” CNN. December
\n22, 2016. Accessed March 04, 2017.
\nhttp:\/\/www.cnn.com\/2016\/12\/21\/politics\/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote-final-count\/.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
If you are a breathing human-being in the United States, or perhaps even elsewhere, you did not go an hour without either hearing or seeing a comment, tweet, picture, video– you name it– regarding the election results on November 9th, … Continue reading