Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale Extended! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 20% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY20". ×

2006 Election Maps Mashups 105

John Fitzpatrick writes, "Search Engine Watch has an article on the launch this week of map-based search tools to follow the 2006 Congressional elections, from both Google Earth and the map-based real estate site The Google Earth Blog notes the release of two election-oriented layers outlining the borders of the congressional districts and linking to Google News articles related to the different races. And HotPads is offering the 2006 Election Edition. From their blog: 'The 435 congressional districts are outlined on HotPads Maps, with red and blue designating the party affiliation of the districts' current Representatives. By clicking on the districts' "I" buttons..., users can view quick facts about the districts including the current Representatives and the candidates in November's contests. By clicking on the quick facts bubble, users can get more detailed information [from] Wikipedia articles with detailed information about the candidates and the close races.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

2006 Election Maps Mashups

Comments Filter:
  • by Red Flayer (890720) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @02:09PM (#16565008) Journal
    Does it matter? Is this info still of interest to you or maybe other slashdotters? Sometimes you have to promote your own products... and sometimes it's a win-win for everyone.

    As for me, I never pay attention to who submitted an article, and usually not to the summary either -- it's immaterial. Either the article stands on its own merits, or it doesn't.
  • Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gambit3 (463693) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @02:15PM (#16565122) Homepage Journal

    You had me until the "facts from Wikipedia" part.

    Anyone remember the last Wikipedia Presidential election fiasco where both candidate's pages had to be frozen because of vandalism? How then would anyone be able to trust the "facts" about the candidates they would read from Wikipedia?

    Go Where Web Thinkers Gather []
  • Re:Wikipedia (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @02:50PM (#16565746)
    Go Where Web Thinkers Gather
    Is that supposed to be a signature, or irrelevant spam? If the former, why do I see it when I browse with signatures disabled? If the latter, please say so so that I can avoid anything else you may have to write.
  • backwards (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Quadraginta (902985) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @02:55PM (#16565852)
    God forbid. The last thing I want is some lazy doofus voting and cancelling out the effect of my carefully-researched, painstakingly thought-out vote.

    I say make it much harder to vote. Make people crawl a hundred yards over broken glass on Sunday night at 4 AM in a driving rainstorm to vote. Then only those of us really fucking serious about the whole business will be making the decisions.
  • by remove office (871398) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @03:12PM (#16566130) Homepage
    Shut the fuck up, hippy.

    Nothing I said was partisan to the least extend. I merely said what Democrats were planning to do once they took back the House. The "First 100 hour" plan has been reported in the press, and there are no serious analysts (either partisan or non-partisan) who believe that Republicans will hold on to control of the House of Representatives this year. If you don't think they will, then you either haven't been paying attention or are in denial. I only gave the bare facts on the Senate stuff as well.

    Nothing I said about the facts of any of the races were the least bit controversial, if you've been paying attention.

    Nowhere in my summary did I say "Gee whiz, I hope Democrats take back Congress this year" or anything like that.

    That said, gee whiz, I am happy that Democrats are finally wrestling control of the House of Representatives from Republicans this year.
  • Re:OR... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Derek Pomery (2028) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @04:04PM (#16567006)
    Neither site notes the Libertarian candidate for Tom Delay's district, TX-22 e.html#TX []
    They note one of the (several) Republican write-ins, but ignore someone who is actually on the ballot.
    Part of the whole red-blue trend that ignores other possibilities.
  • No one takes the truthies seriously.

    And anyone who thinks the Democrats are going to become fire-breathing lefties overnight is compeltely insane. They're a bunch of pet rocks -- it's just that at this point pet rocks would be preferably to people stomping on the gas, driving the country toward a cliff.

    Can I ask you, in all seriousness why you're still happy with the Republicans? I mean, I can understand why you would feel that an attack on this country merits a strong military response -- but that's not what we're involved in at the moment is it? We're stomping around in a quagmire for obscure reasons that have nothing to do with the 9/11 attack or Al Qaeda, correct?

    Or to take another point, I can understand why a conservative would worry about fiscal responsibility... but we don't have fiscal responsibility, do we? How about that deficit, eh?

    By the way, I've been meaning to ask some Repubican or other... do you think you guys could return some of the money Enron stole for you? Seriously, how do you feel about your party recieving stolen goods?

    (And what kind of "conservative" has such contempt for the Magna Carta, not to mention the Constitution? Aren't they time-tested enough? How can you just shrug off what's being done to central fabric of our country?)

Artificial intelligence has the same relation to intelligence as artificial flowers have to flowers. -- David Parnas