The U.S. primary election yesterday took place in 24 states on what is called Super Tuesday. Of course the day is super important for those trying to become the next president. The event begs for maps to show us what’s going on before, during, and after. Unfortunately, the popular news Web sites as a group do a rather poor job. Here’s my quick take on what’s out there.

Elections are a great time for people to learn about places and their differences. Elections bring out not only the political differences in people, but the differences in people located in different places. Only maps can adequately portray these differences. There is additional detail beyond who wins and loses that someone should map – breakdowns by gender, age, nationality, income, and other demographics. It is impossible to understand what is happening politically in this country without good maps. If only there were more of them.

The Good

The Wall Street Journal puts the map on the top of its main page, with one tab each for the Democrats and Republicans. States are colored shades of blue for the Democrat one and red for the Republican maps, with different shades of those colors indicating the winners. On both maps, by hovering over the colored states that voted, one gets a simple text of the winner or projected winners from both parties. No numbers appear – sometimes simple is better. Nicely done, with a lot of information in a small space, but in a way that makes visual sense and gives people what they need to know.

The New York Times has a few maps hanging off its “Election Guide 2008″ page. One links to results details, with separate U.S. maps of both party contests. These maps are big and loaded with information on them and on tables next to them. Click on a state and zoom into a state view with county results shown. The colors are pleasing and the information detailed. A second map shows primary dates, using maps and other graphics to show the distribution. Again here, lots of information and great design work. A third set of maps shows campaign finances by candidate and by location. Plus one can view an animation showing how the financial contributions changed over time. Fascinating material here is not found elsewhere. The Times has by far the best maps I came across.

The Bad

CNN focused on available delegates for each party. The designers decided to combine democratic blue with republican red, but the affect is, well, purple. At least the size of the map is decent and the rollovers for each state provide some details but not too much of value.

CBS News showed “live” results on a map. Unfortunately, the tiny map is difficult to read. To see the results, one rolls the mouse over a state. And it seems as if the designers knew the map failed because next to it they repeat the results in text form, rotating between states.

NBC News doesn’t offer much either. Off the main election page, the only related maps appear to be on its “Super Dashboard” on which there are state outlines next to the results. One has to dig through the site to find “The National Overview“. This big monochrome map lets one click on any state and see results lower on the page. But for states that didn’t vote, there is no information such as primary date. Why not color those states that already voted?

Google took another approach, teaming with Twitter and Twitter vision to show what people think, linked to their places. Google shows a table of results, but no results map here. Interesting social experiment, but the geographic ties are thin.

The Ugly

Unlike CNN and CBS, ABC News decided not to show a primary map on its front page, or anywhere else that I could find on its site.

MTV shows which reporters are in each state. But it covers the U.S. map with pictures of its reporters, and the pictures are not even on top of the correct states. It’s all about the reporters, after all. Perhaps MTV needs to go back to the music videos.

The Washington Post, my hometown newspaper Web site, has side-by-side maps of party primary results on its front page. There are two tabs on each map – one for Super Tuesday and another showing overall results to date. The states that voted are colored, with different colors for each winner. The color choices are curious – red for Clinton, dark blue for Obama, green for McCain, light blue for Romney, red (again) for Huckabee. There are too many colors, and their use breaks common cartographic design conventions. Plus why reuse the red? Did they have extra red ink? In fairness, however, I receive the paper version of the Post and it has done a wonderful job with huge informative maps showing “Political Geography” on inside two-page spreads.