It is apropriate to use "year event occured" as the explanatory variable because that is the variable in which has the definitive answer in which we are comparing the other variable "estimated year event occurred" making that the response variable.
The scatter plot would go in a straight diagonal line from 0 on the left to the top on the right
For the first graph the explanatory variable was the strikes and lockouts because using that as the explanatory allowed us to review Union Membership percentage relative to those strikes and lockouts
For the first graph there is a positive or direct relationship between the strikes and lockouts and union membership percentage.
For the second graph the years are used as the variable for the x axis and the number of strikes and lockouts as well as Union Memberships as the y, cretaing a confusing clustered graph with unecessary data.
In the second graph there is little to no correlation between the variables used in this graph and it is clearly inferior to that previously mentioned.
The bar graph allows the viewer to easily compare income in whichever state they want to view of the average person compared to the governor's salary
There is a viewable relationship between the average per capita income in 2010 and the governors salary relative to the state. In other words the states that have a lower average income also have a lower income fo rthe governors salary (for the mots part).
In this graph you can see that on average states have a $40,000 salary per capita and the governors salary is more erratic and seems to make a disproportionate amount of money in some states.
To me the only point that stands out would be the highest per capita personal income, however not nearly the highest salary for the govenor showing in states where people are making less money the governor is making more disporportionatley.