Also, the electoral map you show makes the GOP look “stronger” mainly because the area of the red states happens to be larger than the more densely populated blue states.
Let’s test this. I inverted the colors on that map, so the Democrats are red and the Republicans are blue. Which looks stronger?
Blue looks like it would have an advantage in a war against red but it seems more evenly matched than the original. And the red states seems like more rugged, tougher places. If I was a different country the blue area feels like the easiest to invade.
(It’s pretty weird that I feel comfortable making these nonsensical judgments about blotches of color. Also, feel free to discount my opinion if you think I’m vested in the outcome as the author of the OP)
When I look at the color-flipped map, I feel like the red area is aggressively penetrating the blue area. When I look at the regular map, I feel like the red is pushing the blue against a wall. Color’s influence on our perceptions is weird.
My first impression was that the red states where fragmented, blue appeared to be stronger.
My second impression was indeed that reds looked menancing.
Size however was lower on the list of things I noticed vs. color.
If the “red” and “blue” of the original had some color components in other channels, then those would indeed by subtly different colors in my altered picture. I just swapped the red and blue channels of the image.
To me, the color really doesn’t make a difference; what strikes me is the relative size of each area, and the Republican block still looks more intimidating than the Democratic ones.
It might be worth noting that I’ve always seen the southern U.S. as a value enemy of sorts—I’m a politically liberal atheist in South Carolina—so I’m wondering if that might play into my perceptions of this. Can we test this with another map?
Let’s test this. I inverted the colors on that map, so the Democrats are red and the Republicans are blue. Which looks stronger?
Oh that is creepy.
Seconded.
Blue looks like it would have an advantage in a war against red but it seems more evenly matched than the original. And the red states seems like more rugged, tougher places. If I was a different country the blue area feels like the easiest to invade.
(It’s pretty weird that I feel comfortable making these nonsensical judgments about blotches of color. Also, feel free to discount my opinion if you think I’m vested in the outcome as the author of the OP)
When I look at the color-flipped map, I feel like the red area is aggressively penetrating the blue area. When I look at the regular map, I feel like the red is pushing the blue against a wall. Color’s influence on our perceptions is weird.
I wonder, could the effect be reduced by using a darker shade of red? This red is certainly more vivid than the blue to my eye.
Wow. My immediate impression is that red still looks stronger.
I don’t agree.
My first impression was that the red states where fragmented, blue appeared to be stronger. My second impression was indeed that reds looked menancing.
Size however was lower on the list of things I noticed vs. color.
Blue for me.
Are those really the same colors, the red seems more orange in this one than the one up top, and the blue seems darker than the original.
If the “red” and “blue” of the original had some color components in other channels, then those would indeed by subtly different colors in my altered picture. I just swapped the red and blue channels of the image.
To me, the color really doesn’t make a difference; what strikes me is the relative size of each area, and the Republican block still looks more intimidating than the Democratic ones.
It might be worth noting that I’ve always seen the southern U.S. as a value enemy of sorts—I’m a politically liberal atheist in South Carolina—so I’m wondering if that might play into my perceptions of this. Can we test this with another map?
Maps with the areas equalized for population