Link to interactive map: https://www.nexojornal.com.br/grafico/2026/10/25/voto-presidente-exterior-2-turno-2026

I'm one person building this, and it’s very much a work in progress. The old maps are library scans, and the borders start from the published datasets below. I build the site with Claude Code, and I use AI to help find and check the treaty or law sourcing the borders; I decide anything it can’t settle. It’s free for anyone to use, no subscription, no paywall: https://treealive.com/atlas

The clip is the live site recorded as I used it, with the loading pauses cut out. You pick a date and zoom in. The old maps of that view made within 25 years of the date are listed under the map. Move the date and they change. Here Paris on 14 July 1789 goes from a 1790 map of France to a 1771 map of the Ile de France, an Italian map from 1776 and a 1795 plan, then forward through 1856, 1870 (a German plan of the city’s fortifications), a 1950 street map and a 1957 IGN aerial photo. Today’s rivers and place names stay on top, so you can judge how well each sheet lines up.

The scans come from the David Rumsey Map Collection (Stanford Libraries), Boston Public Library’s Digital Commonwealth, the University Library of Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam and IGN France, and each one is credited on the map while it shows. The borders are OpenHistoricalMap’s for Europe, with some of my corrections; the US follows the Newberry Library’s county atlas and Canada follows Natural Resources Canada. Europe is checked so far from 1816, the US from 1776 and Canada from 1867. For those ranges, they follow their sources; elsewhere and earlier they’re approximate and labeled that way (mostly after Cliopatria, from the Seshat databank).

The line under the timeline says how much of the land on that date has passed its checks. If you click a place, its card gives the treaty or law behind the outline where I have it, quoted and linked, like the Unification Treaty at the end of the clip. Each cited outline is checked by two separate runs of an AI model (Anthropic’s Claude), and I decide anything they disagree on. Red outlines are known errors I’m redrawing.

The old maps are thickest in the US and western Europe, and a lot of the world has none yet. If your town’s in one of those, try it out. If you see a problem or borders that disagree, call me out- I'll keep working on this.

https://reddit.com/link/1xgf0km/video/jswa3lqutwxh1/player

Source

The Pacific Northwest is defined by dramatic contrasts: rugged mountains rise above misty forests, while a storm-battered coastline gives way to islands, inlets, rivers, and sheltered seas. These contrasts converge on Vancouver Island. Here, varied terrain supports dense temperate rainforests as well as broad valleys, urban centers, and drier landscapes farther inland. The island is also home to Indigenous nations whose histories, languages, and cultural traditions are deeply connected to its lands and waters.

Learn more.

I assigned electoral votes based on the US’s system giving the number of deputies + 3 senators per state. This gives a total of 594 electoral votes and 298 to win (I messed up on the map). This means that Bolsonaro would win because he takes more states, especially in the Southeast, by smaller margins compared to Lula’s enormous margins in the Northeast.

Important caveat though, Brazil caps the number of deputies a state could have at 70, which reduces São Paulo’s electoral votes by 40, as it should have 110 deputies in a proportional system. Those 40 seats/votes are distributed among the other states. So it’s possible that this system would use the proportional distribution, but that wouldn’t make too much of a difference here, Flavio would net about 15 votes.

Source https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/10/26/world/americas/brazil-election-results-maps.html