Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

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 HotPads.com. 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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • OR... (Score:5, Informative)

    by Zwack ( 27039 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @01:59PM (#16564810) Homepage Journal
    Or there is still Electoral-Vote.com [electoral-vote.com] from Mr Tanenbaum himself. Z.
    • I loved Electoral-Vote.com during the 2004 election. But it doesn't cover the Congressional races (last I checked). I have to give credit to Old Media here -- I really like the New York Times' election map. It is Flash-based, but impressive and insightful:

      http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/2006ELECTION GUIDE.html [nytimes.com]
    • your vote was counted.
    • I like to visit My Election Analysis [myelectionanalysis.com] for good frequently updated predictions. It's a bit of a cross between a blog and Electoral-Vote.com
    • There's also Election Projection [electionprojection.com], who track house, senate, and governator races. It's kind of interesting the few differences between these sites--EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.
      • by TheGreek ( 2403 )
        EP is projecting two independent senate wins (if you can consider Lieberman an independent), whereas E-V appears to only count Republicans and Democrats.
        That's because Joe Lieberman and Bernie Sanders have said repeatedly that they will caucus with the Democrats when it comes to organizing the Senate.
  • Now if they would only build a layer showing the various reality TV show locations and stars' houses.... 'cause that is about all the general population cares about anyways.
    • Now if they would only build a layer showing the various reality TV show locations and stars' houses.... 'cause that is about all the general population cares about anyways.

      I'd prefer for the people who don't care how the election comes out to NOT vote. That makes the votes of the people who DO care and ARE paying attention more effective.

      This is actually important for proper functioning of the elections: Their REAL purpose is to predict the outcome of a hypothetical civil war on each issue, accurately en
  • hopefully this motivates some of the lazier ones among us to actually crawl out of their holes and vote, instead of just complaining.
    • I wish I had mod points so I could give you either a +1 Hilarious or +1 Naive.


      This won't do anything since the people who are normally too lazy to get off their fat asses and vote won't be visiting such sites anyway.

      Besides, to quote Bill Vaughan:

      A citizen of America will cross the ocean to fight for democracy, but won't cross the street to vote in a national election.

      Judging by the way things are, that's not too far from the truth.

    • 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 Maclir ( 33773 )
        I suspect that's why the country is in such a shambles now. Only the dedicated - the extremists - vote, and the bulk of the country, the middle of the road people politically (well, middile of the US road, which is still to the right of roads in the rest of the world) don't have their moderating effect.
        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Quadraginta ( 902985 )
          Then you suspect wrong. First of all, turnout in the last national election was 57% of the voting-age population. 57% of the population can't be classified as "extremists" without perverting the definition of "extreme."

          Secondly, the most recent national-level election history has been one of sharp and sudden swings, e.g. from Carter to Reagan/Bush to Clinton and on to Dubya, not to mention the '94 Republican tidal wave, and possibly the Democratic resurgence this year. That makes no sense at all if only
          • Thirdly, the history of the Republic has been one of steadily expanding franchise. That is, as you reel back the decades and centuries, fewer and fewer people have been allowed to vote. If the country is in shambles now and it wasn't then, and this has anything at all to do with who votes, then it must be that widening the franchise -- making it easier for more people to vote -- is what has led to trouble.

            Or it could be caused by global warming, or the decline of pirates.

            Correlation does not necessarily imp

      • 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.

        Yes, I've often thought we really should limit voters to the crazy, single-minded subset of the population.

        -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

        • So you're implying better decisions are made by those who aren't concerned enough about the outcome to be (in my words) "serious" or (in your words) "crazy [and] single-minded"?

          Hmm. So if I decide how your income is spent, and vice versa, we'll both be better off? Interesting logic.
          • So you're implying better decisions are made by those who aren't concerned enough about the outcome to be (in my words) "serious" or (in your words) "crazy [and] single-minded"? Hmm. So if I decide how your income is spent, and vice versa, we'll both be better off? Interesting logic

            No, those who aren't concerned won't show up to vote. Crawling over a hundred yards of broken glass would bring out the crazy.

            -Grey [wellingtongrey.net]

            • Ah. Let me introduce a new word into the discussion, then: hyperbole [reference.com].

              The bit about crawling over broken glass was mere rhetorical flourish. The serious statement is the bit before that, where I said I think it's absurd to try to get to the polls those who aren't concerned enough to vote when it's as easy as it is. The Republic is better off if such lazy and unconcerned folks don't vote. Do you disagree?
      • Why stop there?

        Why not make the leader whoever is willing to set up a coalition of business persons who will stop at nothing to attain power?

        By quitting any other work but politics, they could devote themselves 100% to politics.

        But because there may be other's trying to win power -- these people will have to push even harder. So they would be working on their attaining power, and not any sort of administration work -- that's for down-time.

        And because they have 100% commitment, and are going to have to out-c
        • Well, just to answer one point in the middle of your fine-sounding speech, no, as a matter of fact I don't believe in democracy. The majority is always right? Reality is what we vote it to be? Ten million fools make better decisions than one? Please. Ask me to believe the stars control our destiny -- that would be much easier to swallow. I think a person can only believe in democracy the same way he might believe in the second coming of Christ or the 99 virgins awaiting him in Paradise if he lives a go
          • I can't totally disagree with your rebuttal. Democracy is the worst system-- except for all the others so far.

            I'm just saying that, that Liberalism, is a fundamental faith in humans to be able to rise above themselves--that people can be tought to make good decisions.

            Conservatives, I believe, have a fundamental distrust of Democracy, and so favor corporations because those who can pool capital have shown some decision-making skill. But Corporatism, ultimately becomes Fascism or Communism, because large corp
            • What is a "corporation?" It's a voluntary association of people, who pool their efforts and resources to accomplish at least one common goal. Some corporations are small, tight-knit, with many shared goals: an amateur theatre group, a college fraternity, a club, or a church social committee. Some are much larger, with fewer shared goals: the Sierra Club or ExxonMobil. The shared goals may be putting on a show or a good party, or getting certain laws passed, or selling products and making money for ever
      • I'd settle for a short answer question about at least one of the candidate's platforms.
  • Wikipedia (Score:4, Insightful)

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

    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 [webcogito.com]
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      --
      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.
  • hotpads.com has been /.ed
  • I urge all residents of Florida's 15th District to consider Dr. Bob Bowman [bowman2006.org] for Congress this November.

    This is the first time I've cared about a political candidate since Ross Perot, and I think Dr. Bob has a fighting chance. I'm in it for love, not money, so do to my karma what you will.

    And whatever your politics, and wherever you live, please give careful consideration to this election. I feel it may end up being one of the most important in our lifetimes.
    • And if you're in Utah's 2nd, please vote for Bob Brister [bristerforcongress.org]. He has many of the same views as your Bob Bowman. He supports familial unions for all people, ending the drug war, instant-runoff voting, getting out of Iraq, etc.
    • Well, you got modded off-topic (and I probably will as well) but as a fellow Floridian I wish you and your candidate Godspeed. It looks like from our paper today that Davis is gaining somewhat in the Gov's race. It will be interesting to what happens after the debates tonight (statewide on all PBS channels if you haven't heard). BTW - I am a third generation, lifelong Republican and there is one single local Republican candidate that I am supporting this year. Other than him, I'm voting Blue across the
  • by remove office ( 871398 ) on Tuesday October 24, 2006 @02:37PM (#16565458) Homepage
    Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point. Once Dems take back the House, they will have subpeona power and will begin investigating the Administration's leadup to war, etc. In the first 100 hours of Dem control in the House, future House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has said that she plans to hike the federal minimum wage for the first time in almost 10 years, establish (real) restrictions on lobbying, enact the 9/11 comission reccomendations that the Administration refuses to enact 5 years later, increase federal funding for stem cell research with a veto-proof majority, and lower the amount of money that seniors have to pay for prescription drugs. Obviously all this stuff has to get through the Senate and be signed by the Presidednt into law however.

    In the 100-seate Senate, things are likely to tighten up considerably (Republicans currently hold a majority of 55 so Democrats need to pick up 6 seats to take it back). The only really competative races to watch in the Senate are:
    Montana (whre Democratic challenger Jon Tester leads Republican incumbent Conrad burns- whose Jack Abramoff ties are weighing him down),
    Tennessee (where Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist is retiring, leaving an open seat for Dem Harold Ford Jr and Republican Bob Corker to fight over- this race is mostly tied),
    Missouri (where Republican incumbent Jim Talent is virtually tied with Dem challenger Claire McCaskill, who has made this race about increasing the minimum wage and stem cell research- two issues that heavily favor Dems),
    Rhode Island (where moderate Republican incumbent Lincoln Chafee is struggling to win re-election over strong Dem challenger Sheldon Whitehouse, who leads him in the polls in this solid "blue" state),
    Pennsylvania (where Republican incumbent Rick Santorum is seen universally as the most endangered incumbent in the country, trailing behind Democratic challenger Bob Casey for months now),
    Virginia (where Republican incumbent George Allen leads Democratic challenger Jim Webb, but only after Allen's dropped considerably due to racism allegations surrounding the caught-on-video use of the slur 'macaca'),
    and Ohio (where Republicans statewide are in trouble due to a series of statewide scandals involving the GOP).

    Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this). The only possibility for a Republican pickup is really New Jersey (Dem incumbent Bob Menendez vs Republican challenger Tom Kean Jr- corruption is an issue on both sides of this race), where polls indicate that Menendez is leading slightly.
    • Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point.

      I wonder why we need to have the election, then?
      • by doom ( 14564 )
        Quadraginta wrote:

        Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point.

        I wonder why we need to have the election, then?

        Well the theory used to be that elections were more accurate than polls. Now I guess it's just a tradition.

        If you want to keep an eye on the latest poll results, I recommend Andrew Tanembaum's site: Electoral Vote [electoral-vote.com]

    • So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?
      • > So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?

        Depends on whether the votes are blatantly altered on a large scale like they were in the last 2 federal elections.

        Please don't respond until you read [blackboxvoting.org].
        • The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.
          • by doom ( 14564 )
            monkeydo (173558) wrote:
            The large sucking sound you hear is the irony of your post flying right over your head.
            Ooh! He said irony! He wins!

            But you lose points for lifting a phrase from an old Ross Perot campaign. You might give people the impression you're a political flack or something.

      • by doom ( 14564 )
        zippthorne wrote:
        So.. if it turns out differently, will you say that the analysts are wrong or the votes?
        You mean you guys are planning on rigging the election again? Getting started early, preparing the ground, I see.
    • Will Democrats turn out on voting day this time? Or will they be slackers like they have been for the last 6 years??? I have read several articles saying that the real secret weapon of the republicans and Rove is their 'get out the vote' in the final 72hours.

      Will the Democrats be able to combat this, this time around? Or will they continue their sorry losing streak?

      • arcite wrote:

        Will Democrats turn out on voting day this time? Or will they be slackers like they have been for the last 6 years??? I have read several articles saying that the real secret weapon of the republicans and Rove is their 'get out the vote' in the final 72hours.

        Will the Democrats be able to combat this, this time around? Or will they continue their sorry losing streak?

        You hear all sorts of things, but what I hear is that the Democrats may not have actually been losing anything but the o

      • Why do you think that the Democrats will be an improvement over the Republicans? What do you like about their platform? They are just as anti-civil liberties, pro-war, pro-lobbyist, and out of touch with their constituents as the Republicans are. John Kerry himself was one of the authors of the PATRIOT Act, for Christ's sake. And then the Dems have the nerve to stand up and cheer when, during the State of the Union address, President Bush commented about how parts of the PATRIOT Act were set to expire i

    • Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. ...
      Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)

      Have no fear, Diebold is here!

    • Democrats will be democrats, and they tend to be their own worst enemy...

      Unless, of course, the Democrats, being Democrats, somehow fuck it up. [newyorkmetro.com]
    • You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.

      Some notes:

      You said: "with a veto-proof majority"
      - Last time I checked, a veto-proof majority was not the same as a simple majority. The Democrats will not have a 2/3 majority i
      • You should go into politics yourself. You seem to be able to skew the facts and turn competitive race(s) where no one really knows how people are going to vote, into "There are almost no serious analysts who disagree on this point." So, in one sentence you are saying you know all and anyone who disagrees with you is not serious.

        No. These are just facts. If you had any idea what you were talking about, you'd know that this is what is predicted by all the serious non-partisan analysts (National Journal, C
    • I am a conservative (always vote Republican) and let me say that I hope you are right. This is going to sound like a troll but it really isn't. I'm serious because, as a conservative, I want to see the Democrats hurt themselves. I think that would be the perfect set up for the Republicans in 2008. Let the Dems have control of the House by a small margin. With a small margin, they won't be able to do any serious damage to the country (again - I am conservative and that's my bias). They will investigat
      • 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?)

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by Keebler71 ( 520908 )
          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?

          It's a quagmire to be sure, but I, and many conservatives believe that it was still the right call. I believe that it was the right call,

          • by pnutjam ( 523990 )
            You make some good points, the Dems suck, unfortunatly so do the Reps.

            Who is a rational conservative to vote for?
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by NMerriam ( 15122 )
        It's funny, I was thrilled when Bush won in 2004. Because it was clear to anyone paying attention that Iraq was so ineptly planned that nobody would be able to turn around by that point. Bush had to stay in power so they couldn't blame someone else for fumbling their ball. And no matter who is in control of Congress, Bush is still the Commander in Chief right through the 2008 election.

        The albatross of Iraq is going to be dangling around the Republican Party's neck for as long as amputees and bodybags are co
        • I look forward to the day when real conservatives come back into power in the GOP and these chickenhawk neoconservative cowards are put back at the children's table where they belong.

          Hear, hear! All of these corrupt Republicans need to be voted out of office to pave the way for a real party of small government and individual liberty. Conservatives will never be represented as long as people keep voting for these scum bags that preach small government while spending billions of dollars a week "creating democ

      • I agree with you in principle, but in practice, I'm not so sure. Politicians have a habit of taking credit where it is not due, and most people are too ignorant to know the difference.

        If you follow the progress in Iraq, which most people don't, you know that Iraqi police and armed forces are on target to be mostly self-sufficient by our 2008 election. Democrats would be able to point to their taking over the House as the turning point, and it won't matter much that their policies had nothing to do with

        • by doom ( 14564 )
          kbielefe wrote:
          If you follow the progress in Iraq, which most people don't, you know that Iraqi police and armed forces are on target to be mostly self-sufficient by our 2008 election.
          And may I inquire what the source of information is for this astonishing statement? No, wait, let me guess...
        • by NMerriam ( 15122 )

          They don't listen to their own arguments about the mistakes made. They say Bush didn't send enough troops and that he doesn't pay enough attention to social concerns in Iraq. ...
          The logical response to that argument is to send more troops and commit more resources to reconstruction so we can get out of there faster, but democrats only take that kind of bold gamble on West Wing episodes. In real life, they're not optimistic enough to believe it might work.

          Just because more troops would have helped in 2003

          • Part of your argument (3 state solution, etc.) is about things that are up to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people to decide. President Bush has said he will support any such solutions their democratic process agrees to, even if the solutions might seem radical to us, as long as the rights of individuals are upheld. Iraq is not part of some United States "empire," to be ordered about as we please. They are a sovereign ally who needs our help in establishing security and economic growth.

            The rest of you

            • by NMerriam ( 15122 )

              Part of your argument (3 state solution, etc.) is about things that are up to the Iraqi government and Iraqi people to decide. President Bush has said he will support any such solutions their democratic process agrees to, even if the solutions might seem radical to us, as long as the rights of individuals are upheld. Iraq is not part of some United States "empire," to be ordered about as we please. They are a sovereign ally who needs our help in establishing security and economic growth.

              That sounds great

              • The administration has repeatedly let it be known that the three-state solution is an unacceptable alternative.

                That's because democrats and the media constantly ask why he isn't imposing things like that on Iraq, because their "change course" rhetoric doesn't work without positing alternate strategies. The only way to counter that is to point out that their alternatives are worse than the present strategy, and therefore unacceptable as foreign policy. The word used most often in press briefings is "non-

                • by NMerriam ( 15122 )

                  That's because democrats and the media constantly...

                  Yes, when all else fails, just blame everyone else for your failure. There are no options, except the ones offered for years by Iraqi expatriates, Democrats, Republicans and libertarians, but those aren't real options because they don't fit our ideology. Until after the midterm elections when James Baker suggests it again, then we might look at it.

                  "Publius" argued in the federalist papers that a permanent unified government is a better forum for resolvi

      • No serious political observer, conservative or liberal, believes that the US was complicit in 9/11, so your bizarre attempt to assert that Democrats would be looking for this is at best problematic. However, nearly everyone believes that Bush did, indeed, lie about the intelligence on WMDs. Putting these two together is an attempt to tain the second idea with the lunacy of the first. This is what America is like under the far-right neo-Republicans: if we can't make a valid argument, at least we can make a d

      • It seems like all the republicans are running around voicing your same sentiment. Interestingly, it is the same sentiment that I heard from the dems when the republicans gained control of the house so many years ago.
      • For a moment, ignore the WMDs, Bush and Iraq. The current leaders of this nation have recklessly ignored the long-term viability of this country for immediate political gain. The deficit? Katrina? The dysfunction of congress [rollingstone.com]? Others have given more examples. The people in office are bad people. They deserve to lose their offices. Although they have usurped the GOP, and although they call themselves conservatives, these bad people do not subscribe to any political philosophy except greed. True conservatives
    • The republicans will keep control of the house and senate.

      The exit polls will be wildly divergent from the actual tallies in all states with Republican govenors.

      There will vote fraud on the part of Democrats as well, but it will be unorganized and innefectual.

      The Republican-dominated house and senate will pass voter protection laws designed to make sure this happens again in 2008.

    • Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats

      Well, we certainly can't let that happen!

  • I want to see the maps that the politicans use when they are gerrymandering the districts.
  • stopsayingmashup - tag saved.

    It's like ebonics for Web 2.0 people.

  • I wrote: Democrats will take the 435-member House of Representatives back by a likely margin of 5-15 seats. ... Republicans are looking to pick up the Washington state seat, which they won't, and the Maryland seat, which they also will not (most analysts agree on this)

    You wrote: Have no fear, Diebold is here!

    Actually, Maryland has banned [slashdot.org] the use of Diebold voting machines in their state-wide elections. Diebold isn't there. In Washington state there is some talk of decertifying Diebold machines as we
  • Another informative site that combines election-related blogs [pollster.com] and maps of the various polls [pollster.com] is pollster.com [pollster.com].

    Enjoy

    Disclaimer: I work for Polimetrix, Inc. [polimetrix.com], which runs a poll called PollingPoint [pollingpoint.com] and sponsors pollster.com

  • What I really want to see is a map of where campaign money comes from overlayed on a map of where taxdollars go...
  • Shouldn't we be suspicious of Google for getting involved so directly in politics?
  • I'm sure there's a link to the actual map in the story somewhere. I think...

No line available at 300 baud.

Working...