Can't we create electoral maps that show Population not Geographics?

[FullCountNotRecount]

Those maps should be half blue. Who every gave the GOP Red did so because it was the hot color. Everyone knows blue (dark) colors make you look small.

[RobertSeattle]

1. I've seen them, but don't have a current link

Love those kind of maps - where Alaska is tiny and DC is relatively huge.

I always love the comeback when RW'ers try to show "how much" of the US is "red" --- dirt can't vote.

UPDATE: Found one, but it isn't the sharpest looking map: http://people.uncw.edu/johnstonl/Electoral_College.PDF

[calico1]

2. But in a way I like the maps the way they are.

You could fit NJ about 6 times into North or South Dakota but it has far more electoral votes. Its true, the red states are bigger in area. But the blue states are more populous. It must annoy the hell out of them to know that with less blue states, many of them small in size by comparison to theirs we can be ahead! They have more space but space doesn't matter except for TX and some states with moderate votes. Our little guys count for more electoral votes.