(Analysis assisted by Claude)
This chart reveals a striking pattern in American voting: there’s a clear relationship between how a state voted in 2024 and how difficult that state makes it for people to vote.
The horizontal axis shows each state’s percentage of Trump voters in 2024, ranging from about 30% on the left to 70% on the right. The vertical axis shows the Cost of Voting Index, where positive numbers mean voting is more difficult and time-consuming, while negative numbers mean voting is more accessible and streamlined.
The most important pattern to notice is the upward slope of the data points. States that gave Trump higher vote percentages tend to cluster toward the top of the chart (higher voting costs), while states that gave him lower percentages cluster toward the bottom (lower voting costs). This isn’t just a loose correlation – it’s quite pronounced.
For example, look at the extremes. Mississippi, which gave Trump about 60% of its votes, sits at the very top with a Cost of Voting Index around 2.0 – meaning voting there requires significantly more time and effort than average. On the opposite end, states like Washington, Vermont, and Hawaii, which gave Trump only about 30-35% of their votes, have negative index scores, meaning they’ve made voting notably easier than the national baseline.
To understand what this means practically, remember that the Cost of Voting Index measures things like registration deadlines, voter ID requirements, early voting availability, and absentee ballot procedures. A state with a high score might require voters to register weeks in advance, provide specific forms of ID, have limited early voting days, and restrict who can vote absentee. A state with a low score likely allows same-day registration, accepts multiple forms of ID, offers extensive early voting, and makes absentee voting widely accessible.
The bubble sizes represent turnout rates, which adds another layer to consider. Notice that many of the states with higher voting costs don’t necessarily have the smallest bubbles – suggesting that even when voting is made more difficult, people still turn out, though we’d need to dig deeper to understand whether turnout might be even higher if voting were easier.
This pattern raises important questions about the relationship between political preferences and voting policies. Are states with Republican majorities more likely to implement policies that make voting more difficult? Are there philosophical differences about election security versus accessibility driving these policy choices? The data suggests these aren’t random differences but reflect systematic approaches to election administration that correlate with political outcomes.