The image shows up now, but what caught my attention was the "suppressed
zero". The difference looks pretty dramatic until you note that the range
is 115 to 150, so the variance in actual number of votes cast per year
wasn't anything like it looks. I initially wondered what had caused what
appears at first glance to be a falloff (and reappearance this year) of
perhaps an order of magnitude in interest, until I noted the range didn't
extend to zero, so the graph was effectively of the delta, not of the
absolute numbers.
Donnie, you could have at /least/ mentioned the suppressed zero, warning
people that the magnitude as graphed therefore was not of the absolute
number of votes each year, but rather, of the relative change between
years.
Duncan