Honestly, looking at a map of election results is a lot like looking at a funhouse mirror. You recognize the shape, but the proportions are all wacky. We've all seen that one "sea of red" map after a big night. It looks like one party basically owns the entire continent, right?
Then the final tally comes in and—surprise—it’s actually a nail-biter.
The truth is, a map of election results isn't just a picture of who won. It’s a design choice. And depending on who’s making that choice, they can make a landslide look like a tie or a narrow victory look like a total wipeout. If you're trying to figure out what actually happened in 2024 or what’s coming in the 2026 midterms, you've gotta learn how to see past the colors.
The Great Geographic Lie: Land Doesn't Vote
The biggest problem with your standard election map is that it treats acres of corn the same as a city block in Manhattan. Geographers call this the "area bias."
Think about it. A county in Nebraska might have 500 people living in it. A single apartment building in Chicago might have more than that. But on a standard map, that Nebraska county takes up a huge chunk of screen space, while the Chicago building is a literal microscopic dot.
When you color that giant Nebraska county red, your brain registers a "big win" for Republicans. When you color that tiny Chicago dot blue, you barely notice it. This is why many people were genuinely confused by the 2024 results; the geographic map showed a red ocean, but the popular vote and the Electoral College tell a much more crowded, nuanced story.
📖 Related: Why Fox Has a Problem: The Identity Crisis at the Top of Cable News
Expert Kenneth Field, a renowned cartographer, has spent years railing against these "choropleth" maps (that’s the fancy name for maps where areas are shaded). He argues that they essentially prioritize "rocks and trees" over human beings. If we want to know what the country actually thinks, we shouldn't be looking at how much dirt was won.
Cartograms: The Weird-Looking Maps That Are Actually Honest
So, how do you fix the "land doesn't vote" problem? You use a cartogram.
You’ve probably seen these. They look like the United States had a very strange allergic reaction and started bloating in some places while shrinking in others. They’re weird. They’re kinda ugly. But they are way more accurate when it comes to power.
The Hexagon Strategy
In 2024, outlets like The Independent and FiveThirtyEight leaned heavily on hex maps. Instead of drawing Florida as a peninsula, they represent it as a cluster of hexagons. Each hexagon represents one electoral vote.
- Why it works: It levels the playing field.
- The visual shift: Suddenly, New Jersey (which is tiny geographically) looks huge because it has 14 electoral votes. Montana (which is massive) shrinks down to its 4 little hexes.
- The result: You see the "weight" of the win rather than the "size" of the win.
The 2026 Redistricting Mess
We can't talk about a map of election results without talking about how those maps are drawn in the first place. This is where things get messy for 2026.
👉 See also: The CIA Stars on the Wall: What the Memorial Really Represents
Right now, states like Texas are locked in huge legal battles over their district lines. On January 14, 2026, the Brennan Center for Justice highlighted how the Supreme Court's decisions are allowing certain maps to be used even if they've been flagged as discriminatory by lower courts.
When you look at a 2026 map of election results later this year, you’re not just looking at voter preference. You’re looking at gerrymandering.
Take the "snake on the lake" or "earmuffs" districts you see in some states. Those aren't accidents. They are specifically designed to "pack" certain voters into one area or "crack" them across many areas to dilute their power. If a map looks like a jigsaw puzzle gone wrong, it’s probably because someone worked very hard to make sure the result was decided before a single vote was cast.
What Most People Get Wrong About "Purple" Areas
We love binary choices. Red vs. Blue. North vs. South. But the real map of election results is almost always purple.
Most counties aren't 90% one way or the other. They’re often 52% to 48%. But the way we visualize data usually forces a "winner take all" color. If a candidate wins a county by one single vote, the whole county turns their color.
✨ Don't miss: Passive Resistance Explained: Why It Is Way More Than Just Standing Still
This creates the illusion of a "divided nation" where people in different states don't even speak the same language. In reality, "Blue" California has more Republican voters than almost any other state. "Red" Texas has millions of Democrats in its urban cores.
Some designers are trying to fix this with "Value-by-Alpha" maps. These maps use transparency. If a county has a lot of people, the color is bright and solid. If it’s sparsely populated, the color fades into the background. It’s a much more "human" way to look at the data because it shows you where the pulse of the electorate actually is.
3 Things to Check the Next Time You See an Election Map
Next time a map of election results pops up on your feed, don't just react to the colors. Do a quick "sanity check" with these three questions:
- Is this area-based or population-based? If it’s just a standard map of the US, remember that the "empty" spaces are over-represented. Look for a cartogram toggle.
- What’s the scale? Is this showing states, counties, or precincts? National maps hide local trends. County maps hide city/rural splits. Precinct maps are where the real "meat" is, but they’re harder to find.
- Is it a "Shift" map? Sometimes the most important map isn't who won, but who gained ground. These often use arrows or "swing" colors to show where a party did better than last time, even if they still lost the area.
Actionable Insights for 2026
If you're following the 2026 midterms, stop relying on the big national "horse race" maps. They're designed for TV drama, not for deep understanding.
Instead, look for interactive dashboards that let you filter by demographics or "margin of victory." Outlets like Reuters and the Associated Press are getting much better at providing these tools. Also, keep an eye on the MGGG Redistricting Lab out of the University of Chicago—they do incredible work showing how the actual shape of districts changes the outcome of the map of election results.
Basically, don't let the big blocks of color fool you. Data is messy, people are complicated, and a map is just one person's way of trying to simplify a very loud, very chaotic conversation.
Next Steps for You:
Check out the current 2026 redistricting lawsuits in your own state. Seeing how the lines are moving right now will help you understand why the map looks the way it does on election night. If you want to see what a "fair" map looks like, use a tool like Dave’s Redistricting App to try drawing the lines yourself—it’s a wake-up call on how much power the map-maker really has.