Reply #86: Right, the problem is the map is misleading about the math

[casus belli]

Looking at this map it would be hard to draw that Obama has created a nearly insurmountable lead in the popular vote. Most of Hillary's areas are large geographic plots of land with much smaller populations - rural areas. That's not to discount rural voters, who are important, but the maps simply show a geographic area and color the entire area according to who won it. You could have a state the size of a dollar bill on a map. You could have a scenario where the majority of the population of that state could fit into a space the size of the numeral in the corner of the bill. Let's say in that particular case Obama won that numeral sized piece 55/45 out of a total 1,000,000 voters for that area. Let's say the rest of the state combined had 100,000 voters which Hillary won 60/40. The totals for the entire state would be Obama = 590,000, Hillary = 510,000. Obama has a net gain of 80,000 votes even though Hillary gets to color the entire state except the numeral sized area. So proportionally, even though maybe 90% of the state is Hillary's color, the truth is that she lost by a reasonable margin.

That is why the maps do not work in this type of a scenario. It HAS to be about the math, because the maps simply try to make a geographical representation out of the math, but it gives no representation to population which is the far more legitimate metric.