Nerding Out With Maps: Post-Election Edition | Off Message

Nerding Out With Maps: Post-Election Edition


Maps are cool! Especially these maps created by Stone Environmental's Charlie Hofmann for the Vermont Secretary of State's elections web site.

Since they rely upon data from the state's voluntary election night reporting website, they are sadly incomplete for now. Town clerks reported the results from just 206 precincts that night — roughly 75 percent of the state's 275 precincts.

The secretary of state's office hopes to release unofficial results this weekend and certified results next Tuesday. We'll try to bring you complete maps when they're available.

Despite the missing info, these maps show some pretty interesting regional trends. The most obvious, of course, is the northbound retreat of the Vermont Republican Party. The GOP still has a couple southerly pockets of strength — particularly in Rutland County — but they are few and far between.

You can check out all the maps here. Also, in case it's not obvious, you can zoom in to view town names and check out a town's results by clicking on it.

President: This is both the most and least interesting map. Yeah, we all know President Obama beat Mitt Romney 67 to 31 percent in Vermont, but this map shows just one town going for Romney: Maidstone. (Of course, it's likely several other of the 69 precincts not included in the map also voted for Mittens.) Even in Maidstone, it was a close one. Romney won 52 votes to Obama's 50. If only the two voters who backed Gary Johnson and Rocky Anderson had backed Obama, it would've been a tie!

Governor: Though Gov. Peter Shumlin beat Sen. Randy Brock (R-Franklin) by a resounding 58 to 38 percent, the incumbent struggled in four conservative regions: Rutland County (though he won Rutland City), Barre Town (though he won Barre City) and a few of its neighbors, the Northeast Kingdom and Brock's own Franklin County.


Lieutenant Governor: Incumbent Republican Lt. Gov. Phil Scott won just 8000 fewer votes than Shumlin — beating Democrat Cassandra Gekas 57 to 41 percent — but check out where they came from! Dude clobbered in central and northern Vermont, losing just a handful of Democratic cities in the Burlington area — as well as St. Johnsbury and Middlebury. Gekas did well in the Upper Valley and took home a bunch of votes in Windham County.


Treasurer: It's instructive to look at the next two maps in sequence, as Democratic State Treasurer Beth Pearce won just 7000 more votes in her race against Republican Wendy Wilton (52 to 41 percent) than Democratic/Progressive state auditor candidate Doug Hoffer did in his race against Sen. Vince Illuzzi (R-Essex/Orleans).

There are some definite regional differences in the outcomes of the two races — and some of them are rather obvious. Wilton, for instance, appears to have done better in her home county of Rutland, while Illuzzi did well in his home turf in the Northeast Kingdom. Illuzzi also found some votes in the Barre area, where he grew up. One thing I couldn't figure out during the race was why Illuzzi spent so much time down in Windham County; it doesn't look like that was time well-spent.

All these maps are missing some key towns in Chittenden County, but it sure looks like both Pearce and Hoffer, the latter of whom lives in Burlington, cleaned up there.


Auditor: See above


State Senate: The next two maps should also be viewed in sequence. The Senate map is a little less telling, simply because fewer regions featured competitive races. In the House map, note where independents (in yellow) and Progressives (orange) fared well.


State House of Representatives:


See any other interesting patterns? The comments section awaits your input.

Speaking of Interactive



Comments are closed.

From 2014-2020, Seven Days allowed readers to comment on all stories posted on our website. While we've appreciated the suggestions and insights, right now Seven Days is prioritizing our core mission — producing high-quality, responsible local journalism — over moderating online debates between readers.

To criticize, correct or praise our reporting, please send us a letter to the editor or send us a tip. We’ll check it out and report the results.

Online comments may return when we have better tech tools for managing them. Thanks for reading.