Since it first started to publish in 1923, the general news magazine Time had regularly featured ambitious stories about social conditions, from the state of public education to poverty or religion. Such broad-concept stories were not easy to produce; editors wrestled with the challenge of how to translate a wide-ranging topic with dozens of possible angles into a few pages of concrete, tightly-written prose and pictures. The choices of what to include and what to leave out could be agonizing.

In the fall of 2006, Time Graphics Director Jackson Dykman faced this challenge, with a twist. Editors had decided to produce a snapshot of who Americans are—to be told all in graphics. The news peg was that the US population would soon hit 300 million. The Time article would function as a mirror held up to the face of the nation. How to accomplish that was left up to Dykman.

Although he was a frequent contributor to others’ pieces, Dykman had never undertaken such a large project for Time . He had a scant three weeks to decide what to include in the story, pull together a team, assign them to research specific topics, design the layout, and rush the piece into print. Keenly aware of the looming deadline, Dykman worked feverishly to assemble the components of the graphics project—which was soon elevated to likely status as the cover story. But two days before the piece went to press, he had completed only two “spreads” (two-page exhibits) out of five planned.

As he prepared for the home stretch, Dykman took a late-night call that threw his production schedule into disarray. Because the 2006 midterm elections were approaching, Managing Editor Richard Stengel wanted Dykman to add something new—a spread on Americans’ political affiliations. The request left Dykman reeling.

The graphics director wanted to satisfy Stengel. But he wondered whether a politics spread would fit well with his other pages—which emphasized lifestyle and tried to debunk some of the myths Americans told themselves. He also felt he had nothing new to add to Time ’s political coverage and no pressing argument to make. Was a graphic illustration of party affiliations really the best way to present the nuanced and important story of how Americans vote? Finally, should he aim to give Stengel what he wanted regardless of the quality of the graphic he was likely to be able to produce in 24 hours?