The height of each county is not based on TOTAL population (or the total number of votes), but on the NET votes for the winner (Bush/red, Kerry/blue) in that county. So a county that voted for Bush 200,000 to Kerry's 170,000 would be colored blue (Bush win) with a "height" of 30,000 net votes for Bush (i.e., 30,000 votes for Bush over and above the 170,000 that both candidates each received).
A county that was almost 50% v 50% for the two candidates would be very "flat" compared to one that had a very lopsided outcome. And even lopsided votes in very low-population counties would be pretty "flat" also, because even if 100% of the people voted for one candidate, that still wouldn't be a lot of votes for that candidate.
That's what makes this 3D map so useful, information-wise. It shows how much each county's votes has actually contributed to the potential win/loss amount in the final outcome. "Flat" counties on the map, either through low population or 50/50 vote split (or both) are not the ones that really make a difference to the outcome. The "tall" counties are the ones that skew the outcome one way or the other, by bumping the win/loss differential.
With just a glance at the map, it's easy to see just how very few counties (usually containing big cities) are almost the entire base for the Democrats, due to large, heavily Democrat-leaning populations.
Bush, on the other hand, gets a good amount of support from all over the country.
Ahh Sooo. Thanks for the time to explain. It is awesome!