Hate to be a kill joy, but this chart doesn't say a whole lot.
For starters, the y-axis starts at 70 million rather than 0, distorting the whole chart; '20's red line should be twice the length of '80's tan bar, not 6 times longer. Secondly, there are 3 points on this graph where an election had over 20 million more voters than the previous election - '88-'92 gained 25 mil, '00-'04 gained 20 mil, and '16-'20 gained 26 mil; 2020 isn't really an outlier in that regard, especially when you overlay a general trend line showing a steadily increasing voter turnout every year. However, it is odd that the biggest jumps happen every time a Democrat wins the white house away from a Republican.
If you want to say something with these numbers, maybe compare the total number of votes with the census population data and the total registered voters for each year. You're far more likely to find some fuckery there, and it'll be a lot more convincing.
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.
Hate to be a kill joy, but this chart doesn't say a whole lot.
For starters, the y-axis starts at 70 million rather than 0, distorting the whole chart; '20's red line should be twice the length of '80's tan bar, not 6 times longer. Secondly, there are 3 points on this graph where an election had over 20 million more voters than the previous election - '88-'92 gained 25 mil, '00-'04 gained 20 mil, and '16-'20 gained 26 mil; 2020 isn't really an outlier in that regard, especially when you overlay a general trend line showing a steadily increasing voter turnout every year. However, it is odd that the biggest jumps happen every time a Democrat wins the white house away from a Republican.
If you want to say something with these numbers, maybe compare the total number of votes with the census population data and the total registered voters for each year. You're far more likely to find some fuckery there, and it'll be a lot more convincing.
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.