
The United States Redrawn as Fifty States with Equal Population - wdavidturner
http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/
======
just2n
Even if you TRY to make votes equally powerful by adjusting state boundaries
to equalize population, you still ignore the fact that the electoral college
is like a MASSIVE round-off error, and thus entirely fail to succeed in your
goal and in understanding the essence of the problem, in general.

To massively simplify things: consider that there are only 3 states. State A
is 60/40, state B is 45/55, and state C is 50/50. All 3 have identical
populations. Now states A and B are marginally won before the election, so the
race is tied and the decision lies in C. That means 1/3 of the population
actually gets to decide who is going to be president. And a small fraction,
some 2-3% of that state's population will actually be deciding voters (the
loose cannons, the ones who could go either way). So you're down to 0.67-1% of
the population deciding who will be the president. And that's completely
ignoring how HORRIBLY BAD a simple majority vote is. It essentially guarantees
a 2-party system. C.G.P. Grey has some nice videos on YouTube explaining the
basics, if you're interested.

You don't fix an utterly broken system by changing the inputs. You fix it by
throwing it away and building a better one. As interesting as the resulting
map is, this is just a pointless exercise.

~~~
jrajav
> And that's completely ignoring how HORRIBLY BAD a simple majority vote is.
> It essentially guarantees a 2-party system.

Yes, personally I think this is a much more important issue than the electoral
college.

------
yakiv
> Advantages of this proposal

> * Preserves the historic structure and function of the Electoral College.

I think we may be sort of putting the cart before the horse here. The purpose
of the electoral college was to get the states to agree to adopt the system
(right?). Now we're supposed to preserve the thing meant to get the states to
agree by destroying the states?

~~~
just2n
No, the point of the electoral college was to elect a set of representatives
that would make the journey to DC to cast their votes to elect the president.
You have to realize when the US was formed that traveling from California to
DC wasn't a quick plane flight, and we didn't have communications technology
that could transmit information from one point in our country to any other
point in milliseconds.

The electoral college is no longer necessary, and should be abolished as it
only causes problems that were acceptable in the 1800s, but are no longer
acceptable today.

~~~
talmand
I think you're reaching a bit here. When the Constitution was written there
were thirteen states along the East coast. There was no California for an
elector to travel from to go to D.C. to cast their vote. I have never heard of
the travel time as a reason for the inclusion of the Electoral College in the
Constitution. I seriously doubt that's a justifiable reason for such a thing.

I'm curious as to what problems the EC causes that you state were acceptable
in the 1800s but are no longer acceptable today. From my perspective the
problems would most likely be political in nature. So any problems that
existed 200 years ago would much be the same today.

I'm not the biggest fan of the EC but I believe it more desirable than true
Democracy, as that only leads to mob rule. In that case the states with the
highest populations would be in a position to rule over the smaller, less
populated states. This was part of the debate of the EC in the first place.

~~~
just2n
> I think you're reaching a bit here. When the Constitution was written there
> were thirteen states along the East coast. There was no California for an
> elector to travel from to go to D.C. to cast their vote. I have never heard
> of the travel time as a reason for the inclusion of the Electoral College in
> the Constitution. I seriously doubt that's a justifiable reason for such a
> thing.

They were still spread out over thousands of miles of coastline. You're not
going to deliver votes efficiently even if you constrict the entire country to
the size of a state like New York, because transportation was human/animal
powered at the time. This is the historical justification.

>I'm curious as to what problems the EC causes that you state were acceptable
in the 1800s but are no longer acceptable today. From my perspective the
problems would most likely be political in nature. So any problems that
existed 200 years ago would much be the same today.

Education and dissemination of information makes the problems more widely
understood, but it was unlikely that the decision was made by people who
understood the flaws in the voting systems, as major theoretical study into
voting systems didn't really take off until the mid-late 1800s, and that
information wasn't publicly disseminated until the 1900s. It "just worked" and
was simple, so it was justifiable. These days, we can easily educate ourselves
by reading public work in voting theory and see how mathematically bad such a
voting system is. As well, the justifications needed to make electors a
necessity no longer exist. This leads to problems as we've already discussed
here, such as EC leading to roundoff errors and enabling gerrymandering, which
are well understood PROBLEMS caused by the system. So what was acceptable then
is no longer acceptable.

> I'm not the biggest fan of the EC but I believe it more desirable than true
> Democracy, as that only leads to mob rule. In that case the states with the
> highest populations would be in a position to rule over the smaller, less
> populated states. This was part of the debate of the EC in the first place.

This was in a time when the federal government hadn't expanded its role and
power, so I highly doubt that argument would've held much weight. Federal
systems were in place to prevent that, and it was very, very clear in the
constitution that the federal government was to be extremely limited in power,
while most power was reserved for states. Every state had equal representation
in the senate, amending the constitution wouldn't happen just because one
state has more people than another, since their voting power wouldn't
influence those systems, so it's hard to see how having more people means you
can "rule over" smaller, less populous states. The constitution just doesn't
permit it. And they still made the electoral college proportionate to the
number of people in the state, so that wouldn't have actually prevented what
you mention -- the federal framework would've. Except they did the math wrong,
and smaller, less populous states have more voting power, and due to problems
the electoral college causes, states that are pretty evenly split along party
lines, especially less populous ones, are the only important states in any
given election, and receive significantly more congressional concessions to
win votes. So the electoral college has created a favor imbalance (not really
a power imbalance) that results in some states being pampered by congress,
while others (particularly large, populous ones) are left to fester, which I'd
argue is a pretty crappy outcome if the system was intended to do anything
about that.

~~~
talmand
I would like to see a "historical justification" in writing. A source showing
the Founders being concerned over distance and time of travel. This sounds
like your reasoning for the creation of the EC.

It seems you are assuming that today's voter is more educated in terms of
governance and voting systems than the one's of yesterday. Academics are
certainly more up-to-speed in such theories but that doesn't make them right.
Any voting system that avoids majority rules is going to have problems and
errors inherent in the system. I'd rather take the risk of the occasional
error over mob rule. If there are justifications that electors are no longer
required, when they represent people that wish them to vote a certain way,
then there's an argument that any representative is no longer needed.
Unfortunately the U.S. has a representative government, in an effort to avoid
true democracy. Gerrymandering is more of a problem for the House of
Representatives than the EC, because the Republicans control most of the
gerrymandering right now and it didn't seem to help Romney. But I have no
problem discussing ways of eliminating that power from the hands of state
legislatures. For one, I'm not aware of anything in the Constitution giving
such power anyway, it mostly speaks of how many Representatives per state.

But again, I asked for examples of problems that were acceptable two hundred
years ago but are no longer acceptable now. I didn't see any in your
statement.

I would say that many decisions made in the creation of the government,
including the EC, did revolve around the fear of a more populous state
dominating less populous states. I say this because they, as you point out,
had a fear of an all-powerful Federal government. Just because the problems
did not exist at the time doesn't mean they weren't foreseen nor being
prepared for. Amendments are ratified by the states so they get equal votes on
those regardless, but that's another step they took to avoid a popular vote
problem. But since many laws on the Federal level are written, passed, and
signed without regard to the Constitution it would stand the reason that the
fairness of the amendment process is irrelevant.

What you say about swing states is true, except that they tend to vary from
election to election so I fail to see how Congress can get favor from them via
entitlements. But Congress can lavish the gifts upon their state strongholds
just to be sure they keep them as much as providing something to swing states
to get them to vote their way. Technically, according to the Constitution,
they shouldn't be doing that in the first place to any state regardless of its
political leanings. You say that large states are left to fester which is an
outcome that possibly the system is supposed to do something about. I would
say that the original intentions was that the Federal government shouldn't
have been involved in the first place. Most of the problems you lay out are
there, sure, but most of them have been created by people who wish to tinker
or game the system. Therefore the problems lay in the people running the
system, not the system itself. But even with these problems and roughly a 5%
error rate, as I said before, I would choose that over mob rule any day.

------
Cushman
Somewhat off-topic, but since people are using this to riff on the Electoral
College I'll drop in a mention for the National Popular Vote:
<http://www.nationalpopularvote.com/>

Basically: The states themselves can require a fair election for the
Presidency without any need for a Constitutional amendment or even a Federal
law— this has been robustly defended by legal scholars, and it's already
_half-way_ to completion.

If your state isn't on that list, do your country a favor and call your state
representative about it.

~~~
Steko
Here's the two big problems with the National Popular Vote:

(1) "it's already half-way to completion". Yes with all blue states. Basically
changing the system will favor one party. The other party will not favor it
meaning you lose 1/4 to 1/3 of the states. And you lose another 1/4 to 1/3 of
states because swing states will also not favor it (they would stand to lose
billions in advertising). So this sort of coalition will tend to always be
stuck around 1/2 to 2/3 of where it needs to get to.

(2) "without any need for a Constitutional amendment" Technically yes you
don't but then you're depending on the goodwill of other states. If some state
doesn't like the way the election is going to turn out they can bust the
coalition by changing their participation at the last moment. That's a recipe
for disaster, the rules for the election should be as clear and open as
possible as far in advance as possible.

~~~
scarmig
As to 1)...

Actually, at least in the USA's current configuration, the electoral college
appears to favor Democrats. A tie or small Romney win in the national popular
vote, for instance, would have more likely than not equated to an Obama win.

I think it's genuinely about ideology, here: favoring the will of the people
over the historically contingent existence of the electoral college is making
a kind of ideological statement. The kind that appeals to many liberals and is
a turn-off to conservatives.

~~~
Steko
"the electoral college appears to favor Democrats."

The electoral college has several distortions. The big one and it's _raison
d'etre_ is that it distributes power towards rural states and away from
population centers. There's little question which party that favors.

Now it's certainly possible that Romney could have won the popular vote and
lost the electoral college due to the first past the post distortion that
dilutes big majorities. But that really says more about the relative
competence of the two campaigns then it does about whether the electoral
college structurally favors the Democrats. Romney clearly needed to run quite
a bit farther to the middle than he did.

~~~
robbrown451
Actually a far bigger issue is that the electoral college amplifies the
leanings of states that are well balanced. That's why your vote is worth far
more if you live in a state like florida or ohio than if you live in new york
or texas.

~~~
Steko
"a far bigger issue "

One way to evaluate claims like these is by looking at an extreme comparison:

Alternate World 1: red states are split into mini-versions of themselves the
size of a single CD, a more than doubling of their electoral value. Ignoring
effects on the Senate of course, this is just a test of POTUS electoral
procedure.

Alternate World 2: 25 very red and 25 very blue states of combined identical
population are subject to the whims of a single swing district that is right
in the middle of the spectrum.

It should be obvious that the sorts of presidents you get in world 2 look a
lot more like those in popular vote world than the ones you'd get in world 1.
Actually we might expect that the liberal candidates in world 1 are nearly to
the right of the conservative candidates in world 2.

------
jbattle
I know it's not supposed to be a functional map per se, but I find the
typography really hard to interpret - which names are cities, which are
states? Is Chicago the capital of Gary? Or is Chicago a state that is
surrounded by Gary? What is up with Albequerque and Las Vegas? Are they square
because they are large cities, or are they capitals, or what?

Of course this isn't a serious proposal, but I wonder how reorganizing this
way would impact government and the current political system.

Redistricting would of course have even more enormous implications (would
counties switch states every so often?)

Would Big States be the new Red States?

In this day and age would it be hard to administer an area the size of
Shiprock?

~~~
juiceandjuice
I grew up next to Shiprock, the actual city, in New Mexico, in addition to
other places around New Mexico.

The interesting thing is that the "state" of Shiprock would likely be the
poorest and most nuclear capable state on this map, containing both Kirtland
AFB and Nellis AFB in addition to Los Alamos National Labs and Sandia National
labs.

~~~
jessaustin
I think the states of Ozark and King might rival Shiprock for being the
poorest.

It seems weird how many cities are at the very edge of their large states. I
know that's common for real states because rivers, but it seems to contradict
what they're doing here. Aren't they trying to keep regional economic patterns
within the same states? Springfield MO seems to sort with Tulsa, Topeka, or
Columbia MO (we're not very original with our city names are we?) far more
than with Little Rock or Memphis. Lexington would be more naturally included
in any of the nearby states rather than in Blue Ridge.

Also it's hilarious that Toledo isn't even close to being in Maumee. Fort
Wayne is the single point where that state intersects with the Maumee River's
watershed. A more suitable name for that state would be Wabash or Ohio or, to
go by the highway signs, Lincoln.

Still it's all good fun. You could use this as background for a dystopian (or
not, depending on your politics) scifi story. Much better than "District 12"
or whatever.

------
msluyter
Thought experiment: let's say we could implement this tomorrow. What would be
the effect on our politics? My theory is that it would somewhat rectify our
inherent rural bias[1].

[1] [http://teachingwithdata.blogspot.com/2011/06/elections-
and-r...](http://teachingwithdata.blogspot.com/2011/06/elections-and-rural-
bias.html)

~~~
fusiongyro
> States with small populations (which tend, of course, to be rural) are
> overrepresented in the Senate and Electoral College.

That's the whole point of the Senate: to give states equal weight, not
citizens. For that, we have the House, where everybody does (in principle)
have equal command of a representative. This is pointing to a feature and
calling it a bug.

~~~
wtvanhest
>This is pointing to a feature and calling it a bug.

That depends on if you are a democrat of republican.

Democrats would probably prefer to have every state have equal population and
make representation equal for all.

Republicans would probably prefer to keep the old system in place which gives
land mass credit over individual people.

I'm not arguing for either one, but saying it is definitely a feature is in
the eye of the beholder.

EDIT: I made a bad assumption about who would favor what system. In any event,
the basic point stands that one group will think its a bug, while the other
group will think it is a feature.

~~~
bcoates
This doesn't jibe with the current House and Senate, where the equal-
population represented House has a substantial Republican edge and the Senate
has a majority of Democrats.

Edit: btilly below is right, the House isn't technically proportional
representation, it's equal-population districts. Still, state by state
representation doesn't seem to be breaking reliably for Republicans.

~~~
btilly
If the House is "proportionately representative" then how did Democrats win
substantially in the popular vote in congressional races, while Republicans
won the house by a solid margin?

~~~
PotatoEngineer
A note on how gerrymandering works:

In a perfectly gerrymandered system, the party in power can win using only
25.1% of the vote - and that's if all districts have equal population. You can
get by with even less if the districts have imbalanced populations. In that
"perfect" system, you draw the districts so that your detractors are 100% of
the population in the districts you know that you're going to lose, and your
supporters are 50.1% of the population in the ares you want to win.

In real life, of course, it's messier and you can't draw the lines quite so
perfectly, but here's a link to the districts near Chicago - look how oddly-
shaped they are, especially as you get closer to the city center. (They'll
probably change again next election season, doubly so if the other party gets
control.) <http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/IL>

~~~
truebecomefalse
Chicago is pretty silly but, check out Lamar Smith's district.
<http://www.govtrack.us/congress/members/TX/21>

If you look at the TX map and zoom in on Austin you will see how silly it is.

------
tptacek
Strong objection to any map that puts Chicago in the state of Gary.

~~~
bhousel
Actually, you are lucky. It looks like Chicago is its own state nestled within
Gary.

More info here: <http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/>

I might end up living in the state of "Newark" under this proposal. Not happy.

------
nikcub
Good luck telling Montana they are now part of Utah

The real issue with this is that you would have to change all the states every
so often to account for population shifts.

Besides, the states have long histories that you would lose. Better fixing the
electoral college, which is what is really broken.

------
Whitespace
Does anyone have a link to a larger version where the New York/LA/Chicago
areas are zoomed in?

~~~
rcavezza
This is the biggest I could find:
[http://gerrycanavan.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/electoral10-...](http://gerrycanavan.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/electoral10-1100.jpeg)

~~~
joejohnson
Is LA it's own state, or is it part of Temecula?

~~~
mixmastamyk
Its own, you can see an orange fringe if you zoom in.

------
scythe
As a resident of Atlanta, I am strongly in favor of any reform that
miraculously puts me in a blue state...

~~~
evandena
...with water.

------
duaneb
I'm just at a loss as to why my state has the previously unknown name of
"Willimantic", a state which also contains Providence, Hartford, Springfield,
the Five College area....

------
erehweb
Problem: Redistricting states every x years would introduce unwelcome
difficulties into government. E.g. what happens to state workers in towns that
move from one state to another? Would states have a disincentive to invest in
their border regions, knowing that they might end up becoming their neighbors'
problems in a few years?

~~~
Raphael
The districts don't have to be the same as the states.

------
isalmon
Disclaimer: I'm not from the US.

Question: Can somebody explain to me why on Earth can't they just calculate
every single vote and whoever gets the most of those win the election? Why do
you need this over-complicated system of states, electoral votes, blue vs. red
states, etc? Why is it NOT fair if the majority elects their president?

~~~
jmccree
Because the United States was created as a union of formerly independent self
governing states (Of varying levels between colony and full nation state).
Think of a stronger form of the European Union. This is referred to as the
Federal Government. Each member state has it's own state government, laws,
police, military etc. The federal government is elected by the states, as it's
role in general is to govern the states and interstate matters.

If you are not familiar with the US, you may not realize that for instance
"murder" is not a federal crime. Each state has it's own laws to cover
"murder", and these crimes are investigate by state police authority. Federal
laws (historically at least) only govern interstate laws and laws affecting
state governments.

The electoral college and senate are designed to give each state fair
representation in the federal government. AFAIK, there is no federal
requirement that people even be allowed to vote for president. In the past the
congress/legislatures of some states would decide who to vote for, but now
almost every state now uses the popular vote to decide who that state will
vote for in the electoral college.

~~~
talmand
You are correct, each state can decide on its own how it portions out the
electors for President. Most of them currently use a winner takes all system
for their electors. Some states break them up according to vote totals. In the
past the state legislatures often chose the electors. But over time this has
changed to popular vote methods, as you say, which is interesting since that
eventually lead us to a discussion about abolishing the Electoral College in
favor of a national popular vote.

Not is there only no Federal requirement for people to vote for President,
there's nothing in the Constitution about the right to vote in the first
place. It's more like a privilege that can possibly be taken away. There is a
list of reasons in the Constitution that cannot be used to prevent you from
voting, many of them added in later via the amendment process. Most of the
language of the Constitution doesn't actually give rights to the people, but
restricts the actions of the government. The "right" to vote is considered a
human right to determine your own leadership, but technically the states can
prevent you from voting for any number of reasons. One common example is you
lose your ability to vote if you commit a felony. I bet in some states it's
even being convicted of a lesser charge is the threshold.

If you do have a "right" to vote, according to government, then it most likely
will come from your state's Constitution.

------
rtkwe
I don't think this would solve the electoral college problem because a
candidate would go to the neo-states with the highest density and beable to
work up more votes quicker due to the higher densities. I think we should just
drop the EC completely or at least step away from the winner take all system.

------
crusso
I'm all for refactoring. Every once in a while, you just need to shake up that
Etch-a-Sketch.

~~~
NegativeK
Can you imagine the gerrymandering crap we'd have to put up with if state
lines could be redrawn?

------
rlpb
Does this feel backwards to anyone else? States with small populations have
inflated sizes. States with large populations are tiny and thus look
insignificant.

~~~
Swizec
You can look at it as a map of population density. Each state contains the
same amount of people.

I think it's fairly interesting and nicely shows that most of the US is
practically empty.

~~~
Ingaz
Almost every (large) country is practically empty.

Japan - 4/5 of territory is inhabitable. China - the same. Russia - Siberia is
almost inhabited.

~~~
sophacles
Um, I think you may not be a native english speaker, so just a semantic note
here:

inhabit breaks the "in" prefix convention (or the "in" is not a prefix) in
that the meaning of "inhabit" is "to live there". So an "inhabitable place" is
on where people could live. If you mean "a place where people can't live", the
correct term is "uninhabitable".

Note - the word "habitable" means the same thing as "inhabitable".

It is just one of those confusing English language things, where all rules are
more "guidelines" than hard rules, and there are exceptions to the exceptions.

Another word that follows a similar pattern: flammable and inflammable mean
the same thing. Namely "easy to burn or start on fire".

So I think that to support the empty statement in your first sentence, your
second sentence should read:

Japan - 4/5 of territory is uninhabitable. China - the same. Russia - Siberia
is almost uninhabited.

 _edit_ \- The statement "Siberia is almost inhabited" is also a
funny/sarcastic way of saying "Siberia is almost uninhabited".

~~~
Swizec
As a non-native English speaker, your semantics are incorrect. There is a
nuance.

Habitable is an adjective and means it supports life (usually of humans).

Inhabitable is an adjective form of the verb "to inhabit" and deals with one's
intention.

So habitable means something supports life and inhabitable means intending to
live there is viable, possibly with some modifications to the environment to
make it habitable.

Just a minor nitpick.

~~~
akavi
As a native speaker, I'm going to push back on the nuance you suggest, and say
that that distinction certainly does not exist in my idiolect. Which jibes
with a quick dictionary check.

Neither word connotes intention, as far as I can tell.

------
kunai
This really looks incredible, even if it is simply fantasy.

The names are far better than the states we have now... I mean, Utah? Where's
the excitement in that? Ogalalla is where it's at. Texas? Really? Big Thicket
sounds way better.

Jokes aside, I think rather than abolishing the College completely or doing
something as radical as splitting up states, the real solution is perhaps to
count the popular vote for each state: for example, if California had 66% of
the popular vote for the Blue, it could be counted as a Democratic victory.
Likewise, if Texas got 12% blue, it would be a Republican victory.

First one to 26 wins.

~~~
stephengillie
Instead of Rainier, this state would probably prefer our first choice,
Columbia.

(There was fear Columbia would be easily confused with the District of
Columbia, so our state was named Washington after the president.)

~~~
saraid216
I actually kinda like that I'd be living in Seattle, RR.

------
fivre
Why would draw any map that increases the size of Gary?

~~~
Turing_Machine
I figured the artist just wanted to get in a dig at Chicago.

~~~
sophacles
Also, there is already a strong sentiment in all non-Chicago parts of Illinois
that Chicago should be it's own state, because it dominates all statewide
politics, gets the lion's share of resources, and has a tendency to mess up
calculations for needed rural aid for the rest of the state.

Calling the State "Chicago" would certainly add fuel to that fire.

~~~
littlegiantcap
I'm originally from Illinois (Non chicago) and I would agree with that
sentiment. In fact, where I'm from, everyone called it the People's Republic
of Chicago and the rest of the state as Kentucky proper . (As a joke of
course) On a more serious note though it is frustrating from a political
perspective when Chicago dominates stae politics so much. For example, the
city of Chicago sued my town, because there was an obscure provision on our
books that allowed a certain tract of land to be Section 8 housing. So the
state jacked up our taxes to build cheap apartments and then literally bused
people from Caprini Green (A project) to our sleepy little town. This was all
done in the name of lowering Chicago's crime, not by fixing it, but simply
moving it outside the city. I'm sure it had something to do with their failed
olympic bid. (Another issue our town had to deal with)

------
the_watcher
Since this is on the front page, I'll mention it here: I'm most interested in
the names and any background anyone has on their origins.

~~~
dhosek
It's on the original site: <http://fakeisthenewreal.org/reform/>

~~~
the_watcher
Thanks! Don't know how I missed that. As a "Temecula" native, I didn't know it
came from a song, and not from the valley.

------
stephengillie
Almost exactly 1/2 of the US population lives east of the Mississippi, which
is only about 1/3 of the continental US's land area.

------
cardine
It would be really cool to see what the 2012 election would've looked like
with this map.

------
3am
So far I have to agree with David Kurtz at <http://talkingpointsmemo.com/> \-
my favorite part is that it renames Alabama in honor of Dr. Martin Luther
King, Jr.

~~~
talmand
I'm from Alabama and if we were to rename the state on a historical figure I
would suggest Rosa Parks over Dr. King. But I fear the chosen name is an
attempt at humor at the expense of the white people of the state. Which is
unfair to them and to most especially Dr. King.

~~~
3am
I think it's an attempt at humor at the expense of _racists_. I don't see why
any non-racist white person should be concerned about it.

~~~
talmand
It's an attempt at humor that's an over-generalization. It suggests that for
those of us from Alabama who would have gladly marched with Dr. King or stood
with Rosa Parks, had we been alive to have done so, are to be lumped in with
the racist history of the state simply because of the color of our skin.

But that's my opinion, you have your opinion, and I respect that.

------
tokenadult
I see another comment here has already pointed out that this submission is
blogspam, and has been discussed on HN before. Blogspam is disfavored here,

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4583307>

as is mentioned in the site guidelines.

<http://ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html>

"Please submit the original source. If a blog post reports on something they
found on another site, submit the latter."

AFTER EDIT: The curators here have fixed the link, as pointed out in a reply
to this comment.

~~~
radley
As far as I can tell, this is the original source. The link below (Gary
Canavan) is to an article that shows the map, but the map itself came from
this submitted post.

Duplicate post? Yes. Blogspam? No.

~~~
tokenadult
Thank you for bringing to my attention that the curators appear to have
changed the link in the submission to point to the original source.

------
DannoHung
I wish there were zoom ins of the major metro areas.

~~~
pkfrank
Same. Manhattan and the surrounding buroughs are sure to be effectively dots
on this map. Would love to see how many states are represented in the New
England cluster.

