I finished updating my thesis project “Counting the Vote: An Interactive Study of Electoral College Reform” to include the 2008 election. You can see results by proportional allocation, district allocation, and popular vote.
Swing State Project has compiled the results of the 2008 presidential election by Congressional District, listing which candidate won each of the nation’s 435 districts. Having this data along with state-by-state results, I can now fully update my thesis project with the 2008 election. Stay tuned for an update soon!
(Nod: FiveThirtyEight)
Election 2008 still isn’t over. At least not for Minnesotans. Incumbent Senator Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken are battling each other in a recount that doesn’t seem to end. In question now are absentee ballots that may or may not have been unfairly rejected on election night. The Coleman campaign, citing the Constitution’s Equal Protection clause, says they shouldn’t be counted until there is a uniform process for counting them. I absolutely agree. One county shouldn’t be using a different set of standards to count ballots than another county is using.
Today, we received some more news. From CNN:
Minnesota’s Supreme Court Thursday barred officials from including rejected absentee ballots in the recount of the state’s hotly contested U.S. Senate race unless both of the candidates and elections officials agree the ballot was improperly rejected.
What are the odds both of the candidates agree on which ballot to count and which one not to? And this question begs another. How long will this last? And will there be a victor come 3 January when the new Congress is sworn in? One possibility in this mess: Article I, Section 5, Paragraph 1 of the U.S. Constitution:
Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.
Emphasis mine. So the Senate has the power to intervene in the Coleman/Franken race. Will they?
Oh, and as an aside, a recount is one very strong reason why we shouldn’t popularly elect the president. A national recount in a close election would be a nightmare. But this is a discussion topic for a different day.
Logo Design Love writes about some of the Obama logo ideas that were part of the development process getting to the final logo.
The three finalists:
Finalist #1:
The masked imagery is interesting, but still weak, and that image reminds me of the default desktop on Windows XP. Clearly, though, the designers smartly realized early on the ‘O’ would go a long way.
Finalist #2:
The bubbles are a very interesting concept but seem wildly out of place in a political campaign. This reminds me of the Charles Schwab “Talk to Chuck” commercials with the big quote balloons. I can imagine these Obama balloons animating in a similar fashion.
One of the problems with #1 and #2 is the lack of the strong symbolism that people can subconsciously buy into like any great marketing brand/logo (Nike’s swish, Apple’s apple, McDonald’s golden arches, etc.). A strong symbol that transcends ordinary design in the field and becomes instantly recognizable without any supporting text. That leads us to…
Finalist #3:
Designer Sol Sender notes:
Originally the stripes were kind of symmetrically expressed across the horizon, and as we went into final refinements we felt that giving it a little bit more dimension, a little bit more motion, ways to enter into it a little bit more for the viewer was a better way to go.
And, of course, the final design:
I can’t imagine an Obama campaign without that logo. Like the campaign itself, the logo and graphic design of the campaign were a successful and remarkable exercise in discipline. The logo skillfully symbolizes his theme (sunrise: a new day), America (flag allusion, rolling hills), and himself (the letter ‘O’). Fantastic.
(Nod: Brand New)
This weekend, New Orleans Representative William Jefferson (D) lost a bid for a tenth term in Congress. About time. I wrote last month he was one of eleven Congressmen running for election while under investigation. He’s now the second name to drop off that list, with Uncle Ted Stevens being the first. Jefferson, of course, was found hiding $90,000 of cash in his freezer.
Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) list their report of the 20 most corrupt members of Congress. Here they are:
*Doolittle, Fossella, and Renzi retired; Pearce lost a Senate bid; and Feeney, Jefferson, and Stevens were defeated in their reelection bids.
Looks like with these deletions, we’ll be adding some more names to this list (or could it be that these were the only corrupt Congressmembers and there are no more to add to the list? Yeah, right, sadly). I was going to write we can now add NY Rep. Charlie Rangel to the list, but he’s already on there.
Check out (and vote on how they should count) these examples of challenged ballots in Minnesota’s senate race recount. I suppose an argument can be made for why can’t people read and follow the directions on how to vote, but perhaps an argument can also be made for why can’t we develop a nationally-standardized, user-proof, and user-friendly ballot. One of the many things wrong with the voting process in this country.
(Nod: FiveThirtyEight.com)
The embattled Alaskan Senator Ted Stevens has conceded the senate race to Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich.
Strange Maps posts this very interesting two-part map. The red and blue are the county-level results from the 2008 presidential election. The overlayed black dots represent where 2,000 bales of cotton were produced in 1860 (larger image):
Barack Obama’s campaign spurned some great design work from both the campaign itself and from independent designers/supporters. DesignForObama.org catalogs some of the artwork inspired by the candidate:
(Nod: Alana Taylor)
Marc Ambinder has an outstanding article on the secrets of Obama’s success. One such secret:
Scale / Force Of Numbers: No matter how you measure this election, the Obama campaign was able to do so much because it had so much. What ifs abound. What if they were limited to the federal match? What if they weren’t able to raise as much money? What if they didn’t spend more than $150 million on field? Can this possibly be replicated? Can the Democrats ever again have hundreds of paid staff in states like Ohio weeks before election day? Can they ever find two million active volunteers?
Well perhaps one of those nine won’t be reelected after all. Sean Quinn at FiveThirtyEight reports:
The Alaska Board of Elections has finally updated (pdf). With 17,728 votes counted since the previous update, Democrat Mark Begich has the lead over Republican Ted Stevens, 132,196 to 131,382.
More votes to be counted tomorrow and possibly Friday.
As we’ve pointed out and has been pointed out elsewhere, the remaining votes come from Begich-friendly districts. Mark Begich is now an overwhelming favorite to win the Alaska Senate seat.
Going into the election last Tuesday, ProPublica, “an independent, non-profit newsroom that produces investigative journalism in the public interest,” reported there were eleven Congressmen under investigation who were also seeking reelection. And how many of those eleven were reelected? Nine of them. Nine! Here’s the list:
ABC notes some of these lawmakers’ troubles.
What is amazing to me is that how ever much people complain about an unethical Congress or corrupt system, people are willing to reelect Congressmen with dubious ethical standards. Why? Because:
“I’ve got to believe that the reason why [they're reelected] is that they’ve developed this network of support that’s based on bringing business opportunities and earmarks to the community,” said Craig Holman, a campaign finance lobbyist for the watchdog group Public Citizen. “The more they develop a network in their communities, the more likelihood they can survive a criminal investigation or indictment.”
Somehow, I feel it should be a red flag when your Congressman is found hiding $90,000 of cash in his freezer. Just saying.
(Nod: Ben Smith)
Many, many people had a direct and indirect hand at shaping the person Barack Obama became. From his grandmother who helped raise him to the Illinois voters in 2000 who voted against him in his failed run for the U.S. House of Representatives, these people instilled certain values in him, taught him valuable lessons, and gave him the drive and passion to persevere. There were, however, two politicians and one group of people who were especially responsible for Barack Obama’s rise to the presidency.
One politician responsible is John Kerry for two reasons. First, after Obama gave his speech at the 2004 Democratic Convention, he was thrust into the national spotlight and all but guaranteed himself a place in national politics. If Obama had not given that speech, would he still be president-elect today? Doubtful. Certainly he would eventually catch the American people’s attention, but his speech in 2004 largely made his run in 2008 possible. Whether or not it was initially Kerry’s idea to have Obama as keynote, as the presumptive nominee planning the convention, Kerry certainly had the final say.
Second, had Kerry won in 2004, he would have most likely ran for reelection last week and there would be no President-elect Obama. Kerry losing in 2004 gave Obama the opportunity to run in 2008.
A second politician responsible for Obama’s rise is President George W. Bush. Bush helped create the divided red-state-blue-state America Obama used as a key component of his convention speech and many subsequent speeches. This divide allowed Obama to rally voters with a message of healing the rift. Voter fatigue with Bush’s policies allowed Obama to run as an intellectual, political, and ideological counter to the Bush presidency.
Finally, a group of people responsible for Obama’s success are the Democratic caucus-goers of Iowa. Obama’s win on 3 January gave him the legitimacy to run. Except for his 2004 convention speech, Obama was still a largely unknown and untested national figure. Having been in the U.S. Senate for only three years at the time, he was primarily competing against a former first lady and seven-year U.S. Senator and against a former vice-presidential candidate. The Iowa caucusers gave him a win, and they sent a message to the rest of us saying, “yeah, this guy’s got what it takes.” Had Obama not won Iowa, he effectively would have been done with his presidential run. After spending so many resources and so much time campaigning there, a loss would have been portrayed as Obama not being ready and perhaps being one or two cycles too early.
But he didn’t lose Iowa, and as a result, I think he effectively was elected president that day. Given his strong message of change and his ability to inspire hope and inspiration in people desperately needing both, I feel there was only a matter of time before a majority of voters latched on to his message.
Now, of course, he has that majority of voters to thank as he transitions to the White House. But looking back, these two politicians and this particular group of people had an enormous role in hoisting Barack Obama.
As always, the major networks tried to out-technology each other on election night on Tuesday. Some things worked, some didn’t, and some just didn’t need to happen.
CNN started the touchscreen bonanza with John King’s “Magic Wall,” a touchscreen developed by Perceptive Pixel. On MSNBC, Chuck Todd uses a Microsoft Surface touchscreen. One engineering difference between the two machines is that the Surface screen sits horizontally like a table and the Perceptive Pixel screen sits vertically like a big screen television. Prior to election night, Todd’s Surface was linked to a large monitor so we could see what he was doing:
But on election night, he had a slightly more ambitious setup: a virtual set. Instead of the Surface linked to a large monitor to see the results of Todd’s interactions with the Surface, it was linked to a giant virtual graphic amidst giant virtual columns. There wasn’t actually anything behind Todd; this was a composite shot similar to a weather reporter standing in front of a green screen with a composited weather map and was MSNBC’s effort to out-perform the other networks:
The virtual set was an interesting idea, but there is, though, an inherent flaw with the Surface screen: we as viewers cannot see both the screen and the anchor at the same time. This is where MSNBC’s setup fails. With CNN’s screen, we see John King directly interacting with the screen and the results of the interactions; we can see things animate or change color when King touches them.
When King tells us to take a look at Chester county in Pennsylvania, we can see him touch the county, so we know which county it is and where it is on the map. When Todd does the same thing with Miami-Dade county in Florida, we can only see the results of the interactions. Todd highlights or points to a county on his screen, but when the camera is focused on the virtual screen, we can’t see what he’s pointing to and thus have a lack of correlation. Without seeing what the anchor is doing, we’re left with a fullscreen graphic, so why even have the anchor on the set with the screen and interactions we can’t see? Furthermore, in the first video, if we were to focus our attention on Todd, we would miss the results of his interactions on the large monitor. If we’re watching Todd while he is talking to us, we miss seeing Nevada and Florida changing colors on the large monitor. The director can try to compensate for this by giving us an overhead shot of Todd’s screen, but then we’re left with a pair of hands touching a screen instead of the whole anchor visibly and visually telling the story. Not seeing Todd point to where or what he is talking about is akin to a weather reporter showing us a weather map with fronts, storms, and temperatures but not being on screen to point out what he is talking about. Maybe not such a big deal if we didn’t see the weather reporter, but we’ve come to expect the visible instruction. The Surface setup fails to take this expectation into account. With CNN’s Perceptive Pixel screen, however, we can see the anchor’s direct interaction with the map making it superior to the Surface screen.
Like Chuck Todd, John King on CNN had some of his own virtual graphics. For an explanation on the balance of power in the Senate, King highlighted key Senate races with a virtual Senate-floor layout:
What made this graphic good was the format. The 3D virtual graphic on the looked great, and the tracking with the camera was well done. Even though John King wasn’t in the camera shot physically showing us what he was talking about (like Chuck Todd), he didn’t need to be. This particular graphic didn’t need the physical presence of the anchor to instruct viewers what he was talking about.
But not everything CNN did on election night was good. In what was the ultimate bid to out-perform the other networks, CNN turned two interviewees into “holograms”:
Of course, though, they weren’t actually holograms; they were a series of green-screened images composited to look like a hologram.
From a technology standpoint, CNN wins the battle with their seemingly constant drive to advance on-screen broadcast technologies. During the primaries, they were the first to unveil a highly interactive touchscreen that the other networks now try, unsuccessfully, to emulate. What will be interesting to see is how this technology is used again and how it advances. Like the virtual election maps, the “hologram” was a composite shot, so Wolf Blitzer couldn’t actually see Jessica Yellin. Perhaps the next step is actually creating a true Star-Wars-like hologram with on-set video projection so the interviewer can physically see the hologrammed interviewee on the set?
From an information-delivery standpoint, though, the “hologram” was ridiculously unnecessary, and the developers behind it seemed to concede the presentation is more important than the information being presented. What was the point of the “hologram”? What did it achieve that a standard two-panel video graphic or a cutaway would not? If she or will.i.am were amidst the excitement of crowds, why not show the excitement?
Whatever the rationale behind some of this technology, the technology is here to stay. And with the technology comes the wars between the networks to out-do each other. I hope, though, that we in the broadcast graphics field can learn from what each other do and serve the viewers better by realizing information is more important than the presentation of it. I fear, though, that we’ve permanently crossed the line, and it is more important to dazzle than it is to inform.
Please may we have debates that don’t devolve into recitations of talking points?
The sun may yet set in the north for Ted Stevens. Nate Silver at FiveThirtyEight proves yet again the impressiveness of his contribution to this year’s election analysis:
Although Ted Stevens currently holds a lead of approximately 3,200 votes in ballots counted to date in Alaska’s senate contest, there is good reason to believe that the ballots yet to be counted—the vast majority of which are early and absentee ballots—will allow Mark Begich to mitigate his disadvantage with Stevens and quite possibly pull ahead of him.
The reasoning behind this is simple: some early ballots have been processed, and among those ballots Begich substantially leads Stevens. A tally of Alaska’s 40 house districts as taken from Alaska’s Division of Elections webpage suggests that Begich has won about 61% of the early ballots counted so far, as compared with 48% of ballots cast on Election Day itself.
He analyzes and breaks-down the remaining ballots and concludes:
Combining the already-counted votes with our allocation of early, absentee and questioned ballots produces a projected total of 142,174 votes for Mark Begich and 139,258 for Ted Stevens—a win for the Democrat by approximately 3,000 ballots.
Let’s hope.
With all the talk about Joe Six-Pack, Joe the Plumber, and Joe the Vice-Presidential Candidate, how about this little piece of Joe trivia: Joe Biden marks the first time in American history that a Joe—president or vice president—will occupy the White House. Now that’s change I can believe in.
Although still unofficial, the Omaha World-Herald is calling the Nebraska second congressional district for Barack Obama:
Obama won 8,434 of 15,039 mail-in ballots counted Friday by Douglas County election officials. These early ballots arrived in the election commissioner’s office too late to be included in Tuesday’s election results.
The additional votes gave Obama a 1,260-vote lead over Republican John McCain in unofficial returns. McCain won the popular vote statewide and four electoral votes.
About 5,000 provisional ballots in Douglas County remain to be counted next week, but they are unlikely to change the 2nd District outcome. About half of such ballots typically are disqualified.
I’m very curious if this will have any influence on discussions about Electoral College reform (or if there will be any discussions at all). How exciting, though!
A great set of photos from behind the scenes of the Obama campaign on election night.
(Nod: Political Wire)
One of the best stories I read from voting day was this one. I can’t quote it; you have to read the whole thing.
And this story falls into an interesting data point discussed by Nate Silver: Barack Obama outperformed John Kerry among parents.
Conversley [sic], there is a hidden source of strength in this table that hasn’t been talked much about before: Obama markedly overperformed Kerry among parents. In a sense, it was those people who have most reason to be concerned about the future who voted for Obama: people who are young themeslves, or people who have young children at home.
