The Oregon governor's race by county
For what it's worth, here's Kevin Mannix vs. Ted Kulongoski in 2002:
and here's Ron Saxton vs. Kulongoski this year.
The darker the color, the more heavily the vote went to the winner. Thus in '06, Kulongoski won Multnomah County with 68.4 percent of the vote, while he won Marion County with 46.6 percent; Saxton won Harney County with 72.7 percent, but took Polk County with just 46.3 percent.
and here's Ron Saxton vs. Kulongoski this year.
The darker the color, the more heavily the vote went to the winner. Thus in '06, Kulongoski won Multnomah County with 68.4 percent of the vote, while he won Marion County with 46.6 percent; Saxton won Harney County with 72.7 percent, but took Polk County with just 46.3 percent.
posted by Ken @ 3:33 PM
14 Comments:
At 11/13/2006 5:59 PM,
Gordon R. Durand said…
Very nice maps; very interesting. Mary Starrett made quite a dent in Saxton's numbers. That's an argument against running a more "moderate" candidate (can you get more moderate and still be a Republican?).
At 11/15/2006 9:19 AM,
Anonymous said…
So much for the notion that we needed Saxton to pull in the Portland area...
At 11/15/2006 12:24 PM,
Anonymous said…
There's a similar map here that allows you to see county results just by hovering (or clicking) on the county. Pretty neat, imo.
At 11/15/2006 6:08 PM,
Ken said…
And yet, Kevin Mannix won Washington County in 2002, and you can't tell me he's more "moderate" than Ron Saxton.
At 11/15/2006 6:46 PM,
Crackpot said…
Tells me that our statewide elections should more closely resemble national elections. If were counting electoral votes, Saxton wins in a landslide.
At 11/15/2006 10:12 PM,
Anonymous said…
It would be very interesting to color these counties by degree of actual voting strength.
You can win all of Eastern and Southern Oregon every time and still get beaten like a drum.
The reality I see here is more about economics, not political philosophies.
At 11/16/2006 7:33 AM,
Ken said…
Mark -- when you say "actual voting strength," what do you mean?
At 11/16/2006 7:46 AM,
Anonymous said…
Well, some way of indicating the actual number of registered voters in each county, i.e. dems-reps-ind-const-green, etc via a color scheme.
I think you'd get a much better visual idea of the political make-up of the state, than just a simple red-blue comparison.
At 11/16/2006 2:13 PM,
Anonymous said…
Actually, if you were counting electoral votes, Saxton would still lose in a landslide... as Multnomah, Washington, Clackamas, Lane, etc. would have a lot more electoral votes than Gilliam or Sherman.
Multnomah County alone would have one-fifth or one-sixth of Oregon's electoral votes.
Of course, the whole electoral votes thing is a way to destroy the one person, one equal vote concept.
At 11/16/2006 2:19 PM,
Ken said…
Of course, the whole electoral votes thing is a way to destroy the one person, one equal vote concept.
Yeah, those damned founding fathers...they were secretly trying to disenfranchise the electorate with their cockamamie electoral college idea.
At 11/16/2006 4:07 PM,
Anonymous said…
It's sad that people like crackpot think that abstract constructs like a "county" should carry more weight than an actual person's vote.
And yes Ken, the founders were doing exactly that when they devised the electoral college.
At 11/16/2006 4:13 PM,
Ken said…
Get. A. Grip.
At 11/17/2006 3:08 PM,
Anonymous said…
Whatever. Loser.
At 11/17/2006 4:28 PM,
Ken said…
You're the one bellyaching about the electoral college (because of some deep-seeded resentment over the 2000 election, I'd guess). If you don't like it, then get it amended. If the best you can do is call me a loser because I choose to follow the constitution (which, if I remember correctly, says nothing about a "one person, one equal vote concept"), that doesn't say much for your argument.
Post a Comment
<< Home