So then this graph is even worse because it doesn't even match the data you're pitching!
Total votes in 1988:
Graph: 80 million
Table: 90 million
Total votes in 2000:
Graph: 101 million
Table: 104 million
Compare 1992 with 2000 on the Graph. 92 is supposed to be 103 million while 2000 is 104 million. Which of those years looks to be closer to the 105 million line?
Like I said, at least including data on total population would significantly improve the argument. The table includes that and is far better than this graph.
You want to convince people with data? Maybe try to demonstrate the most basic of competency as regards to analyzing and visualizing that data and double check the work.
That table is fantastic. This Graph is embarrassing.
So then this graph is even worse because it doesn't even match the data you're pitching!
Total votes in 1988:
Graph: 80 million Table: 90 million
Total votes in 2000:
Graph: 101 million Table: 104 million
Compare 1992 with 2000 on the Graph. 92 is supposed to be 103 million while 2000 is 104 million. Which of those years looks to be closer to the 105 million line?
Like I said, at least including data on total population would significantly improve the argument. The table includes that and is far better than this graph.
You want to convince people with data? Maybe try to demonstrate the most basic of competency as regards to analyzing and visualizing that data and double check the work.
That table is fantastic. This Graph is embarrassing.