The Big Picture:

Despite large variations in per-capita funding, the data suggests that smaller-population states of both parties benefit most, indicating structural rather than overt partisan bias in the funding allocations.

The Storyboard

A first surface level look at how much funding in total went to Democratic-won vs GOP-won attes. Democrat-won states got about 20% more overall.

A closer look at per capita funding reveals a different trend- GOP won states got more on average per-capita funding.

Now comparing population to funding per capita. This reveals a little more, mainly that the highest per capita funding happens in states with lower populations. This makes sense since that a lower pop means more for each. These states happen to be mostly GOP-won.

Lastly, when looking at population overall vs state population we see that states with overall lower polulations got less funding in total- confirming what we saw in the first visualization. As population grows so does the funding, and these states are predominandly Dem-won.

Is the allocation equitable based on the population of each of the States and Territories, or is bias apparent?

Based on the findings above, we can say that the allocation is equitable based on the population of each state. THe general trend is that more populous states get more funding overall.

Does the allocation favor the political interests of the Biden administration?

The Democratic won states got more funding overall. However, this makes sense since they tend to be much higher in population. When looking at the general trend we that states with higher populations get more funding overall, with a slight bias towards Dem-won states on the higher end of the population spectrum and a slight bias towards the GOP-won states in the low-population end of the spectrum (see vis. 4). Its important to note that on a per-capita level, it looks like there is more funding going towards GOP-won states, with them getting more per-capita by a lot. This indicates a high baseline of funding across the entire program as well as drastically lower populations in these states compared to the much more populated Democratic won states.

The 3-Minute Pitch

Imagine lining up every state and territory in order of how much federal funding each person effectively receives. You immediately spot some states—often with small populations—towering above the rest in per-capita terms. However, when you compare these allocations against election outcomes, it’s not the blue “Biden states” alone receiving high per-capita funds—rather, several red-leaning rural states rank among the biggest beneficiaries, suggesting that these disparities stem more from structural factors than overt political favoritism. In fact, the sizable baseline funding for smaller states inflates per-capita amounts, indicating that policy might be striving to ensure minimum levels of support everywhere, rather than favoring one party’s electorate.