That map is a really, really nice representation, best I have seen. (And that includes the one I made that you showed part way in.) The only quibble I have with it is that it doesn't illustrate well the distinction in voting behaviour between rural and urban ridings, which could be achieved with other techniques. But no representation can be perfect, so, well done.
I can't believe this channel has not even got 10k subs. Came here due to the fake real camera video which got blown up by the algorithm, but all of your videos seem to be on par.
Very very cool! Have you done this for the US yet? If not...want to collab and do one for the US? (aka give me basics so I can figure out what the heck in the data visualization world you did?? lol)
I like how the alternative one that colours each riding proportionally based on votes shows that even if we're a minority, non-conservative westerners do still exist!!! Though, what would be REALLY nice is if we got some representation, because even though like 40% of Saskatchewan voted for non-conservative candidates, 100% of our seats went to the conservative party :/
Hexagons with concentric rings are a HORRIBLE way to visually show counts by area. It's basically impossible to judge on sight whether an outer ring is larger or smaller by area than an inner ring. Two alternatives: instead of using area, use thickness. This COULD be misleading as a very thick outer ring will look bigger than an inner ring, it's still generally easier to see visually especially if you make some modifications to the inner-most ring so that it is a ring and not a solid. Second: rectangles. Instead of hexagons, use rectangles or squares to represent each district. Then, instead of using concentric rings, simply use vertical or horizontal bars. People can immediately see the thickness of the bars and judge (roughly) how similar each one is. I think this is the much better solution.
Got recommended the blender camera video, decided to check out your channel, of all the things I thought I might find this was not one of them. Cool surprise, interesting idea!
I have always been confused how any election system using "biggest plurality of the single vote wins" ever has more than two parties. It's that structure that made it so that the United States of America has the two party system that we have, but we're "weird" by the standards of parliamentary nations. How do you wind up with more than two major parties in the individual districts when strategic voting should have people piling into one of two parties that are "close enough?"
The simplified answer is: Stubbornness. While you are correct that a plurality-of-single-vote, first past the post style leads to a two-party system in the case of the election of a single individual (or individual and running mate, which is functionally the same), two things complicate the matter in a Local Representation system where a majory of local representatives forms a government (like in the UK, or indeed, like Canada here). The first complication is that each local election is now a hybrid of electing a local representative and also voting for a party-in-power at the end of the process. This causes two competing forces to exist that pressure towards two *different* two-party arrangements; one pressure towards the two most popular parties in the District, and another pressure towards the two more popular parties in the Nation. For example, in one specific district, LibDems and Green might be the top two, but at the same time, everyone in that district knows that neither party has any chance of forming a government even with their local representative from one of those two parties, so many voters will also feel pressure to vote for the Labor or Conservative party in order to ensure that the side they like least doesn't get into major power. Since different people care about the balance between National power and Local representation differently, the results of that pressure can vary significantly. The second complication goes back to the start: Stubborness. People WANT Local Representation. People WANT to have a meaningful choice between a variety of options based on policies that will help that community and district. They want it badly enough that, even when the system does not actually give them that (such as by actually making the Local Rep into a second-hand vote for the Governing Party), people will continue to treat it AS THOUGH it were still about local representation, even if that is to their detriment. And that's ignoring the effect of Protest Votes, an effect more likely to happen the more that a population is not well served by the local representation it ends up normally electing due to the balance of factors above.
@@HeavyMetalMouse Huh. That makes...some sense, but still strikes me as weird. What good is "local representation" that has no power? It's not like the local representative has any authority in the local area; he's trying to get things done on the national stage, and if he's not a member of the party that "forms the government" (which is also an odd turn of phrase to my US American ears, but I understand it's how things are viewed/done and is actually how it works), does he really have any influence at all?
I used blender. The data was input by hand but the calculations of which colour to position where and how big the coloured sections are is all calculated by one huge shader.
