(Aside: Yes, I know this is hella late. I’ve been really absorbed with an upcoming Stat exam this week and it just plain slipped my mind. But I don’t like just not doing things, so I’m going to finish this even though it’s shamefully late. My apologies.)

I examined an NPR infographic examining Trump’s potential path to earn enough electoral votes to become the next president. The article argues that for a period of a few weeks, Clinton’s path to the presidency seemed relatively secure, but in light of Clinton’s recent illness and some inflammatory remarks such as labeling Trump’s supporters as a “basket of deplorables,” there is significant turnover in public opinion such that Trump could once again gain a lead. The accompanying infographic explains these changes (Principle 4: Integration of Evidence).

The infographic is rather complex on first glance, which is perhaps detrimental if readers feel frustrated while examining it. But its complexity allows it to convey a vast amount of information at one time (Principle 3: Multivariate Analysis). Using different-sized squares laid out in a rough approximation of the United States, the graphic shows each state’s voting power (larger state squares have more votes) and which party is most likely to win in that state (blue states=Democrats, red states=Republicans, yellow=tossups). States whose leanings have changed in recent weeks are outlined in black. A panel at the bottom of the graphic gives a summary of the state of the states in turmoil.

I like this infographic, even though it is complex, because it presents the traditional election-season state vote map in a new way. The sheer vastness of many of the Western and Midwestern states makes one believe (even when you know better) that those states must wield significant voting clout. This graphic, however, reminds you that a candidate may become president if they win merely a handful of the most densely populated states. Our electoral system is counter-intuitive to say the least, and it is only through the use of a somewhat counter-intuitive (or at least, nontraditional) graphic that one may convey its complexity,

• Infographic Link: “Hack Your Way to Scientific Glory” is an infographic in the larger article “Science Isn’t Broken; It’s Just a Hell of a Lot Harder Than We Give It Credit For” on FiveThirtyEight.com.
• Why I Chose It: I’m a scientist, and I love interactive infographics! This had both.
• What I Liked About It: I loved the fact that it was interactive: I could manipulate the infographic (i.e., data) and it would spit out a different image (i.e., result). Total eye and brain candy.
• Tufte’s principles used:
  1. Comparisons (Principle 1), because it compared Democrats and Republicans.
  2. Multivariate Analysis (Principle 3), because it analyzed which politicians to include (presidents, governors, senators, and/or representatives), how to measure economic performance (employment, inflation, gross domestic product, and/or stock prices), and other options (factor in power and/or exclude recessions).

I chose the NYT How They Got Their Guns article as my infographic. It covers a range of different shootings, including the Orland Pulse nightclub shooting and the San Bernardino shooting, to juxtapose how the different mass shooters obtained their weapons. I like that it explored the overarching fact that most of the guns were obtained legally. I think it was also helpful to have the visual infographic because I think a story that compared the different shootings strictly by text could get somewhat convoluted by the many different details like victim counts, assault rifles vs. glocks, etc. But the clean layout and visuals made it much easier to absorb the information and naturally compare them.

The New York Times’ “2016 Election Forecast: Who Will Be President?” infographic is very interesting because it has so many different elements and ways of looking at the election. It does a good job of presenting it from all sides — it shows the general election forecast, state by state forecasts, compares its forecast to forecasts made by other news outlets and predictors, shows what outcomes are most likely going to occur with electoral votes, and even allows users to toggle between candidates for swing states to see what other possible outcomes could occur given different situations. I found this aspect of the graphic particularly useful and cool because it really shows which swing states are the most vital for both candidates.

In terms of Tufte’s principles:

Right away, I know that this infographic does a good job of showing comparisons. It’s comparing potential outcomes, it’s comparing its own data against data from other sources, it’s showing the many different ways each candidate could be affected by swing states. It also compares likely electoral votes for both candidates. Tufte’s second principle of analytical design — Causality, Mechanism, Structure, Explanation —  also applies to this infographic. We are able to see what voting in which states would cause a candidate to win, and it provides explanations as to why. This graphic also uses multivariate analysis, in all of the ways that I’ve already mentioned. It does a good job of integrating evidence through diagrams and graphs. It is well documented, giving a title, contributors and explaining the data. And, of course, I believe this graph has excellent quality content.

There are a number of infographics on this webpage from fivethirtyeight.com, and they all work together to give a picture of the political landscape at this time.  I’ll restrict my comments to the map at the top.  I chose it because I’m a political junkie and this is an updated projection.  The infographic uses comparison between candidates in terms of likely electoral votes.  Color gradations are used to show likelihood of winning for the candidate currently favored in that particular state.  Tufte’s principle of comparisons is exemplified here.  This map shows a series of comparisons between the candidates, making clear that one is being compared to the other in terms of her or his likelihood to win each state.  Likelihoods are presented in percentages for each candidate for each state, found by hovering over that particular state.  Of course, a projected grand total of electoral votes and chance of winning is also given, clearly conveyed at the top.

---

I just learned something from reading Katie’s post, which was made while I was composing mine – looking at multiple inforgraphics on the page as example of Tufte’s principle of integration.  That makes sense.  Thanks, Katie!

 

I am in a public opinions class based around the 2016 election with Barry Hollander, so I am very familiar with fivethirtyeight.com. When I read the assignment, I immediately thought of an interactive, infographic-filled story on the forecast of the election.  Because the story is made entirely up of infographics, I decided to choose two that really explained the current election in a matter of seconds.

 This infographic shows the map of the US, colored in with states each candidate is predicted to win. We’ve all seen this map in practically every election story put out, but what I think confuses a lot of readers (including me) is how it seems like there could be so much red for Trump, and yet Hillary is still winning? Enter infographic #2…

 This second infographic helped me to quickly understand and interpret the confusing message of the first, far more common infographic. This graphic, though wonky, is still a map, just laid out as an interpretive guide to electoral votes. By giving each state, no matter how big or small the same size vote, but showing how many votes each state is represented by, readers are able to see more definitively how a confusing concept like electoral votes matter to an election.

These infographic pieces use Tufte’s Principal of Integration of Evidence– including not only words, but images, interactives, diagrams, and symbolic representations of data.

I chose the infographic in the story “Julia Louis-Dreyfus is Unstoppable” on fivethirtyeight.com. I chose this article because it was about entertainment, more specifically The Emmy’s, and the actress being discussed was one that I have seen in many different shows. I liked this infographic because it did not include an overwhelming amount of facts or stats, but I still understood the point that was trying to be made.

This infographic was built on the basis of comparisons. The different shows that Louis-Dreyfus has appeared in are all laid out next to each other to prove the point that she thrives on the various formats and genres of TV. The causality in the infographic is change over time, and it is done successfully by displaying the data in a graph format. The TV average is also shown as a dotted line to give more clarity to the point being made. All elements of design and data are integrated together. IMDB is a credible source when it comes to entertainment ratings, so having that as one of the variables as opposed to just “user ratings” allows readers to trust the data being presented.